Once upon a time, Darwinian theory was regarded as anathema to feminism. It presents gender stereotypes as inherent and predetermined, rather than as a production of socialisation and implies that women should fulfil “traditional roles”. No wonder it found a natural home among social conservatives. More surprising, though, is how a new generation of feminists have embraced evolutionary theory, using it to explain the current sexual disenchantment they see in the world.
Women, as they see it, are losing in our overly casualised, hook-up-oriented sexual marketplace because it is not how natural selection meant us to be. We were sold a lie that promiscuity was empowering, and we have come up against the constraints of an evolved psychology that tells us to lock down a man and have a baby. As a result, women are single, childless and unhappy. The solution? Variations on abandoning contraception, practising abstinence, embracing marriage and prioritising traditional family structures. The illiberalism of “there are no differences between men and women” is met with the illiberalism of “these differences are insurmountable”.
The evolutionary logic behind human behavioural sex differences, first theorised by the evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers in 1972, goes like this: because men can hypothetically father as many children as women they could sleep with, whereas women are limited in the maximum number of children they can have, men have evolved to be promiscuous, competing among themselves for a limited number of women. It also led men to become jealous, and in some instances violent, to avoid being cuckolded.
Women, by contrast, who are at risk of being left holding a demanding and vulnerable baby, have evolved to be picky and to prefer monogamy. This package of behaviours is sometimes called “sociosexuality” (high = promiscuous, low = chaste), and is borne out by our experience that men tend to desire more sexual partners and seek out casual sex to a greater degree than women.
But then we get to the question of the size of this difference — and in a debate about the sexual revolution, size matters. Is the disparity really that big? Is it even biological? Or does it vary between cultures?
In The Case Against the Sexual Revolution and Feminism Against Progress, Louise Perry and Mary Harrington both lean on Trivers’s theory, with Perry citing research that shows large sex differences in sociosexuality across 48 countries. The study, carried out in 2005 by a psychologist at Bradley University in Illinois, asked university students how many sexual partners they had had in the last year, how many of these were one-night stands, and whether they thought sex without love was acceptable, among other things. Putting aside that the sex lives of students are wholly unrepresentative of the general population and are unlikely to reflect how older individuals approach sex, and, in the words of the author of the research himself, that to extrapolate from this data to populations as a whole “would be inappropriate”, the research also showed that the sociosexuality gap varied a lot between these same 48 modern states, narrowing considerably in more gender-equal countries. If you keep in mind that men tend to overstate their promiscuity while women tend to understate theirs, then these differences are likely to get significantly smaller. They will still exist, but presenting them as entirely biologically caused, universally large and culturally invariable is a misleading first step in a logic that is defeatist about social change. If we were to look a little wider, outside of our rich and industrialised countries, we would find that the story of male and female sexuality gets a lot more complicated.
Consider the following statement: “I don’t like it when her boyfriend is here in the morning when I come back from being away.” This line might seem plucked from a conversation about sexual jealousy in a polyamorous chatroom, but in fact it comes from a Himba man, a semi-nomadic pastoralist group from Northwest Namibia.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“In 2021, more babies – 51% – were born to unmarried mothers in England and Wales than to those in a marriage or civil partnership for the first time since records began in 1845″ – University of Manchester, Aug 25th, 2022.
The Himba, at 48% aren’t I’m afraid the highest ever recorded. They aren’t even close.
KidsData.org tells us that for 2016, 64.8% of babies born to African AmericanBlack women in California were born to unmarried mothers. Incredibly this is 4.9% lower than the US average for that year for the same racial demographic. (Hispanics in both cases are just above 50%). Goodness knows what the numbers are for the communities with the highest “sociosexuality”.
It took me 5 minutes to find the above data. People decry a lowered level of trust in experts, but it’s hardly surprising if would-be experts can’t be bothered to get basic facts right, and then make entirely incorrect claims as a result.
Anyway, if the Himba have a society where socio-economic outcomes for kids are the same regardless of the marital status of their parents, good for them. The problem in modern societies is that evidence appears to show that the socio-economics outcomes for those born outside of wedlock are worse than those born and raised in a two-parent family. So if it’s ethics you’re seeking, then rather than obsessing about what various other writers have said, assuming it’s children you’re thinking about, maybe the answer lies in what is in their best interests, not your own.
Unmarried doesn’t mean that they are born to single mothers though. Out of that 49% (UK example) most children will still be born to two parents in a monogamous relationship, therefore the writers points are perfectly valid.
I agree the examples used by the writer probably wouldn’t lead to the best outcomes for children in western society, however she never made that point to begin with, it’s something you’ve shoehorned into your reply, answering a question that wasn’t asked
Can you document that?
Except non-marital relationships are much more unstable and will likely create a single-parent household in short order.
With one partner or the other already having an eye to the exit and greener pastures
I used to visit youth prison and it transpires that about 96% of the inmates had no relationship with a father.
It takes a village.
To ruin the family.
When the War on Poverty was begun in the US and monthly welfare check began being cut (roughly $22 trillion since), black males became superfluous and departed family life. Children without fathers turned to crime and drugs and filled the prisons in the decades to come.
What does that have to do with a village? A village is a supportive community like a Kibbutz. The idea being that no children are abandoned. You managed to turn what I said around to fit your agenda.
Some physically tough sons after puberty do not accept discipline from Fathers easily; and they are even less likely to accept discipline from a man who is not the Father /Grandfather/Uncle.
If a large tough son wants to leave the house it is unlikely that the Mother has the physical strength to stop him. The Comments by sons are likely to be ” You cannot stop me ” also ” Your not my Father “. If two sons are fighting post puberty it is unlikely that they Mother will be able to separate them.
If a Father does not teach their son to respect the Mother they are unlikely to to respect other women. If a Mother dotes on a son after puberty they will tend to expect the same doting behaving from their girlfriends and wives. How many women complain that men do not do enough housework or show them respect?
Women are in the right to complain about the bad and disrespectful behaviour from men. It is the responsibility of the Father to bring up sons who are polite, well mannered and respect women. If the Father is dead, then it’s responsibility of nearest male relative.
The advantage of sons leaving school at fourteen years and undertaking apprenticeships is the Master can become a surrogate Father figure.
When it comes to sex the presence of VD needs to be considered. It would appear that the barabrian invasions at the Fall of the Western Roman empire and post Columbus introduce either VD or new strains of VD to which Europeans had not immunity. The painting and drawings of people with VD in the 15 and 16 th centuries are horrific.
History of venereal diseases from antiquity to the renaissance – PubMed (nih.gov)
History of syphilis – Wikipedia
Syphilis speard very quickly in Europe in the 16th century.
What is ignored is that many of the laws on behaviour in The Old Testament are to prevent the transmission of disease between people living closely together and with a lack of water for washing.
90% of Police time is spent with 10% of the population of which 1% probably cause most of the violence.The proportion of large violent men my only increase by 1% from 1% to 2% and the number of violent crimes doubles. There are plenty of law abiding men brought up by single Mothers. However there appears to be a disproportionately high number of criminal men, especially violent ones brought up by single Mothers in urban areas, where there has been no discipline from male relatives. Once several, say three, and especialy five or more, strong violent boys or men act together in criminal activity they can have a massive detrimental impact on an area.
The film Harry Brown depicts extremely well an area run by criminal gangs.
Harry Brown – Official Trailer HD – YouTube
And your point is?
And your point is?
No, to cast light on yours.
Today’s modern kibbutzniks, then, often have to get their sustenance from either the courts, or state relief agencies.
The resulting squalor is there for all to see.
What? The Kibbutz are in Israel.
What? The Kibbutz are in Israel.
Today, many sons do not accept discipline from the Father, less so from a Step Father and even less from other males in the village. For the last 60 years left wing middle class, especially teachers have been criticising respect for elders and displine. This has been a criticism of many parents of West Indian and West African background of the lack of discipline in schools.
If we look at areas which were deprived but had stable populations in the 1920s and 1930s, the Non Conformist , heavy industry, Chapel and Sunday School attending,boxing, rugby and cricket playing; the parents would accept their children being disciplined by other adults. In many areas ,Police sergeants used give young men a belting instead of an arrest as this would prevent them having a criminal record which would greatly reduce their employability. This has not been impossible since the mid 1950s.
Now many single Mother do not accept their sons being disciplined by other males. In fact they do not accept they do anything wrong at all.
If an adult male took a teenager to the parents for discplining after undertaking a criminal act they, they would be arrested for asault. The attitudes of most people in rough areas and the way the Police and Lawyers implement the Law, makes it very risky for an adult male to make a civilian arrest.
This is all way off topic.
The Village you talked about existed in the valleys of Wales in the 1920s and 1930s and countryside , not London when Billy Hill organised criminal underworld.
Since the 1960s The Left Wing Middle Class have mocked discpline, respect for elders, Christianity, good manners, etc . It was Christian preachers who founded the labour Party, Keir Hardie, Ernest Bevin, James Callaghan, etc .
The Left Wing Middle Class changed welfare , pre 1960s council homes were for honest hardworking families. Post 1960s it became based upon need so unskilled and educated young women became pregnant to obtain a council home.
Contact sports and cadet forces were banned by most left wing councils post mid 1970s. The left wing middle class banned being able to give a cheeky teenager a clip around the ears by an adult. Mothers brought men into the homes who rowed and sometimes were violent to sons who then roamed the streets, joined gangs often for protection and undertook criminal activity.
A very astute African American woman said many sons went onto the streets because they did not like to hear the sound of the Mother making love to a man not his Father.
When sons were arrested for criminal activity Mothers denied they had done anything. In the 1920s and 1930s when the valley was the village, the sons went to work at fourteen and then boxed, played rugby in winter, cricket in summer and attended Chapel and Sunday School. The Left extended the school leaving age which has not improved standards as some boys switch off after the age of fourteen. I suggest you study Switzerland where people can leave school at fourteen years of age . There were plenty of fit tough men in the valley or village who would either arrest the criminal sons and take him to the Father or give him a beating there and then, thus avoiding a criminal record. A boy was expected to take his punishment like a man.
The Left Wing Middle Class destroyed the social order needed for The Village in the late 1960s.
The Village you talked about existed in the valleys of Wales in the 1920s and 1930s and countryside , not London when Billy Hill organised criminal underworld.
Since the 1960s The Left Wing Middle Class have mocked discpline, respect for elders, Christianity, good manners, etc . It was Christian preachers who founded the labour Party, Keir Hardie, Ernest Bevin, James Callaghan, etc .
The Left Wing Middle Class changed welfare , pre 1960s council homes were for honest hardworking families. Post 1960s it became based upon need so unskilled and educated young women became pregnant to obtain a council home.
Contact sports and cadet forces were banned by most left wing councils post mid 1970s. The left wing middle class banned being able to give a cheeky teenager a clip around the ears by an adult. Mothers brought men into the homes who rowed and sometimes were violent to sons who then roamed the streets, joined gangs often for protection and undertook criminal activity.
A very astute African American woman said many sons went onto the streets because they did not like to hear the sound of the Mother making love to a man not his Father.
When sons were arrested for criminal activity Mothers denied they had done anything. In the 1920s and 1930s when the valley was the village, the sons went to work at fourteen and then boxed, played rugby in winter, cricket in summer and attended Chapel and Sunday School. The Left extended the school leaving age which has not improved standards as some boys switch off after the age of fourteen. I suggest you study Switzerland where people can leave school at fourteen years of age . There were plenty of fit tough men in the valley or village who would either arrest the criminal sons and take him to the Father or give him a beating there and then, thus avoiding a criminal record. A boy was expected to take his punishment like a man.
The Left Wing Middle Class destroyed the social order needed for The Village in the late 1960s.
This is all way off topic.
No. That’s what you – and maybe Clinton too – want it to be.
Most people just see “village” as a place or small group of people living in quite close proximity. “Supportive” is entirely optional.
You want to turn the word around to fit your agenda.
No I don’t, and I didn’t. You did.
No I don’t, and I didn’t. You did.
Some physically tough sons after puberty do not accept discipline from Fathers easily; and they are even less likely to accept discipline from a man who is not the Father /Grandfather/Uncle.
If a large tough son wants to leave the house it is unlikely that the Mother has the physical strength to stop him. The Comments by sons are likely to be ” You cannot stop me ” also ” Your not my Father “. If two sons are fighting post puberty it is unlikely that they Mother will be able to separate them.
If a Father does not teach their son to respect the Mother they are unlikely to to respect other women. If a Mother dotes on a son after puberty they will tend to expect the same doting behaving from their girlfriends and wives. How many women complain that men do not do enough housework or show them respect?
Women are in the right to complain about the bad and disrespectful behaviour from men. It is the responsibility of the Father to bring up sons who are polite, well mannered and respect women. If the Father is dead, then it’s responsibility of nearest male relative.
The advantage of sons leaving school at fourteen years and undertaking apprenticeships is the Master can become a surrogate Father figure.
When it comes to sex the presence of VD needs to be considered. It would appear that the barabrian invasions at the Fall of the Western Roman empire and post Columbus introduce either VD or new strains of VD to which Europeans had not immunity. The painting and drawings of people with VD in the 15 and 16 th centuries are horrific.
History of venereal diseases from antiquity to the renaissance – PubMed (nih.gov)
History of syphilis – Wikipedia
Syphilis speard very quickly in Europe in the 16th century.
What is ignored is that many of the laws on behaviour in The Old Testament are to prevent the transmission of disease between people living closely together and with a lack of water for washing.
90% of Police time is spent with 10% of the population of which 1% probably cause most of the violence.The proportion of large violent men my only increase by 1% from 1% to 2% and the number of violent crimes doubles. There are plenty of law abiding men brought up by single Mothers. However there appears to be a disproportionately high number of criminal men, especially violent ones brought up by single Mothers in urban areas, where there has been no discipline from male relatives. Once several, say three, and especialy five or more, strong violent boys or men act together in criminal activity they can have a massive detrimental impact on an area.
The film Harry Brown depicts extremely well an area run by criminal gangs.
Harry Brown – Official Trailer HD – YouTube
No, to cast light on yours.
Today’s modern kibbutzniks, then, often have to get their sustenance from either the courts, or state relief agencies.
The resulting squalor is there for all to see.
Today, many sons do not accept discipline from the Father, less so from a Step Father and even less from other males in the village. For the last 60 years left wing middle class, especially teachers have been criticising respect for elders and displine. This has been a criticism of many parents of West Indian and West African background of the lack of discipline in schools.
If we look at areas which were deprived but had stable populations in the 1920s and 1930s, the Non Conformist , heavy industry, Chapel and Sunday School attending,boxing, rugby and cricket playing; the parents would accept their children being disciplined by other adults. In many areas ,Police sergeants used give young men a belting instead of an arrest as this would prevent them having a criminal record which would greatly reduce their employability. This has not been impossible since the mid 1950s.
Now many single Mother do not accept their sons being disciplined by other males. In fact they do not accept they do anything wrong at all.
If an adult male took a teenager to the parents for discplining after undertaking a criminal act they, they would be arrested for asault. The attitudes of most people in rough areas and the way the Police and Lawyers implement the Law, makes it very risky for an adult male to make a civilian arrest.
No. That’s what you – and maybe Clinton too – want it to be.
Most people just see “village” as a place or small group of people living in quite close proximity. “Supportive” is entirely optional.
You want to turn the word around to fit your agenda.
What does that have to do with a village? A village is a supportive community like a Kibbutz. The idea being that no children are abandoned. You managed to turn what I said around to fit your agenda.
To ruin the family.
When the War on Poverty was begun in the US and monthly welfare check began being cut (roughly $22 trillion since), black males became superfluous and departed family life. Children without fathers turned to crime and drugs and filled the prisons in the decades to come.
It takes a village.
I just read an article which said hostility between parents is a greater predictor of problems even if marriage is involved. That parents, even if divorced who are calm and civil to each other provide better outcomes than married parents who are in constant conflict. And when the standard is marriage only that’s the case.
Furthermore since the commentator above seems particularly focused African-American families, there was a study about involved fathers and the childcare provided. African-American fathers did particularly well, even if they’d never been married and did not live with the mothers. White married fathers scored very badly on notions of involvement with their children.
Oh well if there was a study, I guess that settles it.
Absolutely. The quality of the relationship between parents is what counts. That and having community.
When the Father is absent how does the Mother discipline a son post puberty especially if large and strong? Wait till you Father comes home only works when the Father comes home. When the Father is away for months, the son(s) can readily get out of control.
When the Father is absent how does the Mother discipline a son post puberty especially if large and strong? Wait till you Father comes home only works when the Father comes home. When the Father is away for months, the son(s) can readily get out of control.
Oh well if there was a study, I guess that settles it.
Absolutely. The quality of the relationship between parents is what counts. That and having community.
So?
With one partner or the other already having an eye to the exit and greener pastures
I used to visit youth prison and it transpires that about 96% of the inmates had no relationship with a father.
I just read an article which said hostility between parents is a greater predictor of problems even if marriage is involved. That parents, even if divorced who are calm and civil to each other provide better outcomes than married parents who are in constant conflict. And when the standard is marriage only that’s the case.
Furthermore since the commentator above seems particularly focused African-American families, there was a study about involved fathers and the childcare provided. African-American fathers did particularly well, even if they’d never been married and did not live with the mothers. White married fathers scored very badly on notions of involvement with their children.
So?
While I take your point re the use of words, the writer says ‘extra marital’ children, so I think the comparison holds. Also, monogamous only means that you’re not, during the course of the relationship, sleeping with someone else. The point about marriage is that it is (supposed to be) a long-term commitment.
The current position in the UK is that 55% of unmarried parents will have separated by the time their child is 5 and 95% by the time the child is 16. In other words, nearly all single parents will have separated by the end of childhood. Mr B. Bob has a fair point.
Do you really believe that unmarried mothers are in relationships with men that stick around to raise their biological children?
Yes. Judging (with a generous margin of error) by who is wearing a ring. I know many men and women in commited family relationships, who are not legally married. Many such families are made up of a man, a woman, their kid(s) and other kids from previous relationships. Since the children tend to stay with the “baby mom” these are usually hers. His other children are like half-siblings living in another household, with their mother. No one bats an eye at any of this.
I find the lack of a proper, legal marriage to be a bit baffling. But of course, it’s none of my business.
I lived three years in the Netherlands where civil partnerships were prevalent, not marriage. That is not the case in California or the US in general. (I can’t speak to the UK). Unmarried relationships, even monogamous, are not long term or committed to the well being of children. The State has largely replaced fathers as a primary means of dependence and support.
But your point is a good one. The current deplorable state of our Western social fabric certainly has not progressed in a positive manner since these practices became the norm, but it is not the only cause. I think this situation is only a symptom of the larger trend towards moving away from the Judeo/Christian tradition. We are moving towards a rudderless world, which leads to chaos, which leads to authoritarianism at some point when the pot boils over.
It’s the Judeo/Christian religion that imposed marriage in the first place because it benefitted patriachy and land ownership, not women. It’s responsible and answerable for centuries of suffering. The Bible is quoted to justify controlling people’s lives, and shaming them if they don’t obey “god’s rules”. This doesn’t just apply to marriage, of course, but that’ bad enough. Catholics have been forced to stay in marriages they’re miserable in and have more children than they can’t afford. How do you think that affects the children?
Excellent points Clare
Thanks Elaine!
Thanks Elaine!
It seems to me that most societies have just observed the obvious, that is, that women and children benefit from providers while gestating and for at least a few years while children are small. Who better to pressure into providing (and protecting) than the sperm donor? You can’t count on the Village, or me, to voluntarily take care of another man’s offspring. That’s not religion’s fault. It’s in my and other males’ wiring across many species, and wise societies embrace that as reality. Patriarchal? I guess.
If you follow some of the authors links you’ll find that in some of the non-JC villages you imagine, infanticide is pretty widely practised.
Including, though not limited to, men bumping off the children fathered by another man. Something that happens pretty extensively amongst other primates as well.
Marriage was also invented to make children legit. And bring families together for social economic reasons.also it’s said That marriage is a noble existence that marriage helps society .the religions didn’t do women a service though in many ways trying to subjucate through marriage and church dogma does anyon e really want or buy that bs about adam and eve or that men should lead the family etc.? Obviously not or there wouldn’t be so many fine women Drs,teachers etc.
I think most women grow tired of unambitious, easily led men. There’s no respect. Look at Meghan Markle; she has Harold on a lead but you can tell she has zero respect for him. For my own part I could never be with a man who put up with my schidt. When the chips are down and the situation dire women want a knight in shining armor.
It’s 2023. We don’t want to be your ‘Knight in shining armour’.
It’s 2023. We don’t want to be your ‘Knight in shining armour’.
I think most women grow tired of unambitious, easily led men. There’s no respect. Look at Meghan Markle; she has Harold on a lead but you can tell she has zero respect for him. For my own part I could never be with a man who put up with my schidt. When the chips are down and the situation dire women want a knight in shining armor.
No. The institution of marriage was created to protect women from rape and to constrain men from promiscuity. It’s not responsible for suffering any more than any other codified order of society. You are benefiting from the echos of a stable society but it is quickly coming apart. If people are miserable it is of their own making in the unwise choice of a partner. But mostly it’s because they are bored and they have no qualms about blowing up their kids lives chasing after selfish whims. And what do kids get out of divorce? Possible abuse or molestation from the new gf or bf; if a new marriage results they are pushed to the back of the line when the inevitable babies come. They don’t have a refuge from the world because of getting shuffled back and forth from one household to another, that’s if the father cares to stick around and the mother doesn’t whisper poison into their ears. So is you think it’s great today then I have to respectfully but vehemently disagree.
Marriage has existed in many cultures. In European society the idea that a woman and man would live together and bring up children existed prior to Christianity. Christainity codified existing practices. Virginity for women was only important post about 850AD (post Charlemagne) when titles and land were inherited. Where land and titles were not inherited, the woman married the man who got her pregnant. What was important was fertility and the ability to raise children to the age where they could reproduce , about three years post puberty: 14 years for girls and 16 years for boys.
VD entering Europe post 1492 ( Columbus ) changed attitudes to sex.
The Bibles rules are largely to prevent people killing each others and the spread of disease, between people and from animals, in a nomadic society, living in tents, in a desert where there is little privacy and little water.
I would say women have more more freedom, in warrior societies ( Viking, Sparta ), nomadic ( Beduin, Mongol ) and where husbands travel away from home ( Viking, Dutch 16 and 17th centuries ). Renaissance Italy was sexually very free. In Venice, a girl married at the age of 16 years or so and once she had produced an heir and spare could have affairs. Northern Italy up to the time of Casanova of late 18th century would appear to be sexually free whereas Spain was not.
In Minoan Society the portrayal of topless women suggests women had much more freedom.
I would suggest restrictions on female behaviour and sex in general, may be due to where there are concerns about whether there are the resources to support children.
Syphilis roared through Europe like a wildfire upon Columbus’ return. Says alit about the amount of promiscuity going on then.
The Midddle Ages appear to have a relaxed attitude to sex, people marrried when the woman became pregnant. It would appear chastity becomes more important after the arrival of syphilis. The High Renaissance has many paintings of naked bodies. However Luther and then The Counter Reformation from the 1520s onwards also reducesacceptance sexual activity outside of marriage. It may well be several activities occur one after another reducing sexual activity outside of marriage and then it increases again from the late 17th century in Roman Catholic Italy and France but not Protestant NW Europe. Compare Restoration England of the 1660s ( Nell Gwyynne, Charles II )and Puritan England of the 1640s and 1650s also Regency England of 1800-1820s and Victorian England of 1870s to 1901.
The Midddle Ages appear to have a relaxed attitude to sex, people marrried when the woman became pregnant. It would appear chastity becomes more important after the arrival of syphilis. The High Renaissance has many paintings of naked bodies. However Luther and then The Counter Reformation from the 1520s onwards also reducesacceptance sexual activity outside of marriage. It may well be several activities occur one after another reducing sexual activity outside of marriage and then it increases again from the late 17th century in Roman Catholic Italy and France but not Protestant NW Europe. Compare Restoration England of the 1660s ( Nell Gwyynne, Charles II )and Puritan England of the 1640s and 1650s also Regency England of 1800-1820s and Victorian England of 1870s to 1901.
Syphilis roared through Europe like a wildfire upon Columbus’ return. Says alit about the amount of promiscuity going on then.
Excellent points Clare
It seems to me that most societies have just observed the obvious, that is, that women and children benefit from providers while gestating and for at least a few years while children are small. Who better to pressure into providing (and protecting) than the sperm donor? You can’t count on the Village, or me, to voluntarily take care of another man’s offspring. That’s not religion’s fault. It’s in my and other males’ wiring across many species, and wise societies embrace that as reality. Patriarchal? I guess.
If you follow some of the authors links you’ll find that in some of the non-JC villages you imagine, infanticide is pretty widely practised.
Including, though not limited to, men bumping off the children fathered by another man. Something that happens pretty extensively amongst other primates as well.
Marriage was also invented to make children legit. And bring families together for social economic reasons.also it’s said That marriage is a noble existence that marriage helps society .the religions didn’t do women a service though in many ways trying to subjucate through marriage and church dogma does anyon e really want or buy that bs about adam and eve or that men should lead the family etc.? Obviously not or there wouldn’t be so many fine women Drs,teachers etc.
No. The institution of marriage was created to protect women from rape and to constrain men from promiscuity. It’s not responsible for suffering any more than any other codified order of society. You are benefiting from the echos of a stable society but it is quickly coming apart. If people are miserable it is of their own making in the unwise choice of a partner. But mostly it’s because they are bored and they have no qualms about blowing up their kids lives chasing after selfish whims. And what do kids get out of divorce? Possible abuse or molestation from the new gf or bf; if a new marriage results they are pushed to the back of the line when the inevitable babies come. They don’t have a refuge from the world because of getting shuffled back and forth from one household to another, that’s if the father cares to stick around and the mother doesn’t whisper poison into their ears. So is you think it’s great today then I have to respectfully but vehemently disagree.
Marriage has existed in many cultures. In European society the idea that a woman and man would live together and bring up children existed prior to Christianity. Christainity codified existing practices. Virginity for women was only important post about 850AD (post Charlemagne) when titles and land were inherited. Where land and titles were not inherited, the woman married the man who got her pregnant. What was important was fertility and the ability to raise children to the age where they could reproduce , about three years post puberty: 14 years for girls and 16 years for boys.
VD entering Europe post 1492 ( Columbus ) changed attitudes to sex.
The Bibles rules are largely to prevent people killing each others and the spread of disease, between people and from animals, in a nomadic society, living in tents, in a desert where there is little privacy and little water.
I would say women have more more freedom, in warrior societies ( Viking, Sparta ), nomadic ( Beduin, Mongol ) and where husbands travel away from home ( Viking, Dutch 16 and 17th centuries ). Renaissance Italy was sexually very free. In Venice, a girl married at the age of 16 years or so and once she had produced an heir and spare could have affairs. Northern Italy up to the time of Casanova of late 18th century would appear to be sexually free whereas Spain was not.
In Minoan Society the portrayal of topless women suggests women had much more freedom.
I would suggest restrictions on female behaviour and sex in general, may be due to where there are concerns about whether there are the resources to support children.
It’s the Judeo/Christian religion that imposed marriage in the first place because it benefitted patriachy and land ownership, not women. It’s responsible and answerable for centuries of suffering. The Bible is quoted to justify controlling people’s lives, and shaming them if they don’t obey “god’s rules”. This doesn’t just apply to marriage, of course, but that’ bad enough. Catholics have been forced to stay in marriages they’re miserable in and have more children than they can’t afford. How do you think that affects the children?
I once got talking to a woman who had been with her partner for twenty years. They had three children and a mortgage. She said she didn’t want to get married because she was scared of the commitment……
What’s your point?
There’s irony there because she obviously was commited and they had a stable relationship.
What’s your point?
There’s irony there because she obviously was commited and they had a stable relationship.
This is anecdotal – the evidence is overwhelming that children hugely benefit from their parents having a stable relationship. Yes, I also know heterosexual parents who are not legally committed to each other who have been living together reasonably happily for many years, and some marriages may be contracted cynically or superficially (let’s have a huge wedding in the Maldives….) but the overall correlation is clear. You are much more likely to want to legally (or religiously) cement your relationship and declare it publicly if you are more committed to it.
I expect your nose is in a lot of business.
(And Clare Knight, too.)
Yes. I’m a talkative, friendly guy with a great dog. People tell me things. I don’t ask. To be honest, I’m kinda flattered. And I sometimes hear the most wonderous tales. (You’d be suprised how many people have seen a ghost!)
(And Clare Knight, too.)
Yes. I’m a talkative, friendly guy with a great dog. People tell me things. I don’t ask. To be honest, I’m kinda flattered. And I sometimes hear the most wonderous tales. (You’d be suprised how many people have seen a ghost!)
Exactly. It’s none of your business.
I lived three years in the Netherlands where civil partnerships were prevalent, not marriage. That is not the case in California or the US in general. (I can’t speak to the UK). Unmarried relationships, even monogamous, are not long term or committed to the well being of children. The State has largely replaced fathers as a primary means of dependence and support.
But your point is a good one. The current deplorable state of our Western social fabric certainly has not progressed in a positive manner since these practices became the norm, but it is not the only cause. I think this situation is only a symptom of the larger trend towards moving away from the Judeo/Christian tradition. We are moving towards a rudderless world, which leads to chaos, which leads to authoritarianism at some point when the pot boils over.
I once got talking to a woman who had been with her partner for twenty years. They had three children and a mortgage. She said she didn’t want to get married because she was scared of the commitment……
This is anecdotal – the evidence is overwhelming that children hugely benefit from their parents having a stable relationship. Yes, I also know heterosexual parents who are not legally committed to each other who have been living together reasonably happily for many years, and some marriages may be contracted cynically or superficially (let’s have a huge wedding in the Maldives….) but the overall correlation is clear. You are much more likely to want to legally (or religiously) cement your relationship and declare it publicly if you are more committed to it.
I expect your nose is in a lot of business.
Exactly. It’s none of your business.
Yes. Judging (with a generous margin of error) by who is wearing a ring. I know many men and women in commited family relationships, who are not legally married. Many such families are made up of a man, a woman, their kid(s) and other kids from previous relationships. Since the children tend to stay with the “baby mom” these are usually hers. His other children are like half-siblings living in another household, with their mother. No one bats an eye at any of this.
I find the lack of a proper, legal marriage to be a bit baffling. But of course, it’s none of my business.
“[M]ost children will still be born to two parents in a monogamous relationship, therefore the writers points are perfectly valid.”
Yeah, “monogamous relationship” carries too much water in this claim.
What qualifies? A relationship of what duration? Anything more committed than a one-night stand? It takes about 20 years to launch a child into the world….
Nearly half of all marriages end in divorce so is it that much of a better indicator?
That was a myth invented in the 1970s, based on a projection at a time when divorce rates were rising. They’ve been dropping since then and never approached that level. In 2019, according to the US census bureau, 7.6 of every 1000 resulted in divorce. I cite that statistic only because it is easy to find.
42% of marriages end in divorce currently in the UK
Hold on! Fewer than 1% of marriages in the USA result in divorce – whaaat? Where is this stat?
42% of marriages end in divorce currently in the UK
Hold on! Fewer than 1% of marriages in the USA result in divorce – whaaat? Where is this stat?
All that means is that society has failed to teach them how to discern a compatible life partner.
That was a myth invented in the 1970s, based on a projection at a time when divorce rates were rising. They’ve been dropping since then and never approached that level. In 2019, according to the US census bureau, 7.6 of every 1000 resulted in divorce. I cite that statistic only because it is easy to find.
All that means is that society has failed to teach them how to discern a compatible life partner.
Nearly half of all marriages end in divorce so is it that much of a better indicator?
Good point Billy Bob.
Can you document that?
Except non-marital relationships are much more unstable and will likely create a single-parent household in short order.
While I take your point re the use of words, the writer says ‘extra marital’ children, so I think the comparison holds. Also, monogamous only means that you’re not, during the course of the relationship, sleeping with someone else. The point about marriage is that it is (supposed to be) a long-term commitment.
The current position in the UK is that 55% of unmarried parents will have separated by the time their child is 5 and 95% by the time the child is 16. In other words, nearly all single parents will have separated by the end of childhood. Mr B. Bob has a fair point.
Do you really believe that unmarried mothers are in relationships with men that stick around to raise their biological children?
“[M]ost children will still be born to two parents in a monogamous relationship, therefore the writers points are perfectly valid.”
Yeah, “monogamous relationship” carries too much water in this claim.
What qualifies? A relationship of what duration? Anything more committed than a one-night stand? It takes about 20 years to launch a child into the world….
Good point Billy Bob.
Yes Seb. ” assuming it’s children you’re thinking about”.
Olympia here doesn’t seem particularly concerned about the children and, as Arthur points out below, the consequences for the children are often disastrous.
The main point she is making is surely that it’s complicated. She is certainly not arguing against monogamy or fidelity in marriage. She is saying that we can’t use evolutionary theory to back up the virtues of a particular ‘traditional’ way of doing things. Which seems fair enough. We shouldn’t need to justify monogamy using science. Like the sex and gender dispute, tradition and culture should be able to stand on their on two feet. It’s the sign of desperation when people run to science to justify their way of life. I’m sure the Himba don’t.
I agree. Her article seems to put evolution in a very bad light! Hardly ‘survival of the fittest’.
Perhaps because evolution isn’t about “survival of the fittest” in way you use it. Darwin was a great mind but he was not the first and last word on evolution. It’s moved on a lot since then and a lot since the “evolutionary biologist” she cites tried to shoe horn modern western cultural assumptions into biology. (Not every culture, even our own, had our current male/female view of sexual desire) I will grant the 1972 guy enough slack that bonobos were not as well studied at that point but there was no reason to think that being “picky” meant women chose monogamy. There are plenty of examples in nature of monogamy he could have studied.And those exist in species in which the female does the choosing and so could be considered very picky.
Darwin said it was the species which respond most quickly to new environmental conditions which had the best chance of survival.
If one loks at civilisation the oldest is the Sumerian at 3500 BC followed by the Egyptian at 3100 BC. Western Europe had barely started farming. What one needs to ask is why Western Europe technology developed after 1453 and Britain after 1660, when it had endured a civil war where 10% of the male population was killed and it was heavily in debt?
I would suggest technological evolution is a good example of evolution.
Darwin said it was the species which respond most quickly to new environmental conditions which had the best chance of survival.
If one loks at civilisation the oldest is the Sumerian at 3500 BC followed by the Egyptian at 3100 BC. Western Europe had barely started farming. What one needs to ask is why Western Europe technology developed after 1453 and Britain after 1660, when it had endured a civil war where 10% of the male population was killed and it was heavily in debt?
I would suggest technological evolution is a good example of evolution.
Perhaps because evolution isn’t about “survival of the fittest” in way you use it. Darwin was a great mind but he was not the first and last word on evolution. It’s moved on a lot since then and a lot since the “evolutionary biologist” she cites tried to shoe horn modern western cultural assumptions into biology. (Not every culture, even our own, had our current male/female view of sexual desire) I will grant the 1972 guy enough slack that bonobos were not as well studied at that point but there was no reason to think that being “picky” meant women chose monogamy. There are plenty of examples in nature of monogamy he could have studied.And those exist in species in which the female does the choosing and so could be considered very picky.
Well put!
“She is certainly not arguing against monogamy or fidelity in marriage” – essay’s tittle is “Let women be promiscuous”
I agree. Her article seems to put evolution in a very bad light! Hardly ‘survival of the fittest’.
Well put!
“She is certainly not arguing against monogamy or fidelity in marriage” – essay’s tittle is “Let women be promiscuous”
The main point she is making is surely that it’s complicated. She is certainly not arguing against monogamy or fidelity in marriage. She is saying that we can’t use evolutionary theory to back up the virtues of a particular ‘traditional’ way of doing things. Which seems fair enough. We shouldn’t need to justify monogamy using science. Like the sex and gender dispute, tradition and culture should be able to stand on their on two feet. It’s the sign of desperation when people run to science to justify their way of life. I’m sure the Himba don’t.
You sir are an Empirical Utilitarian Extremist and your “Malinformation” is a threat to Democracy. Social Science is not the boring process of repeating experiments over and over…it is the Science of trusting politically motivated Social Planning Experts to run statistics through an Equity algorithm and then reinterpret the outcomes in the name of social progress.
Let me guess…you also question Modern Monetary Theory and doubt the wisdom and feasibility of Net Zero by 2030!! To quote some of my favorite Progressive Journalists “You may harbor right wing beliefs.”
God Lord, are you suggesting that there are people who don’t trust our experts? But, experts have degrees and stuff!
A degree is no weight in your life but there are plenty of educated idiots around these days.
Experts say studies show.
A degree is no weight in your life but there are plenty of educated idiots around these days.
Experts say studies show.
Yes, dear.
Well done.
I must be right wing then I suppose.
You just might be one of those in the “vast, right-wing conspiracy” that one H.R.C. proclaimed, before she called them “a basket of deplorables”.
You just might be one of those in the “vast, right-wing conspiracy” that one H.R.C. proclaimed, before she called them “a basket of deplorables”.
God Lord, are you suggesting that there are people who don’t trust our experts? But, experts have degrees and stuff!
Yes, dear.
Well done.
I must be right wing then I suppose.
Don’t be prescriptive or very dogmatic in transcribing evolutionary theory to the perceived advantages of monogamous commitment as an antidote to misery of modern relational dynamics. In.the end I think the writer straw man’s Perry and Harrington accusing them of lacking insight and nuance about the hard won gains of female liberation. I simply don’t see that, which in the end for me makes the whole article rather pointless
Parts of this essay remind me of a saying I heard 60 odd years ago,
”In, [insert an English county of your choice], they f..k all the year round and share the babies out at Christmas.”
Oh that’s what we should do then because it happened somewhere? Exactly.
Norfolk.
Norfuck?
Norfuck?
Oh that’s what we should do then because it happened somewhere? Exactly.
Norfolk.
But aren’t there more women in England and Wales than Himba in South America?
Any disadvantage to single parenting in the West is entirely due to economics. these families are financially poorer.
Oh no not at all. Men pick up a lot of slack in the household and is a blueprint for girls on what to expect in a mate. They also teach boys how to be good men. This is evident in the natural world as well. The elephant experiment is probably the most well known.
Oh no not at all. Men pick up a lot of slack in the household and is a blueprint for girls on what to expect in a mate. They also teach boys how to be good men. This is evident in the natural world as well. The elephant experiment is probably the most well known.
Sorry Seb but since I am not a subscriber, I cannot post here, unless I reply to a post, so I have chosen yours.
As expected this article is in contradiction because it concludes with the statement: “Harrington tells us to reject the contraceptive pill” yet most of the article highlights subsistence tribal cultures that do not have the contraceptive pill and whose primary (economic) productive character is collectivism and who primary outcome of sexual activity is reproduction, with the children raised by the tribal group or at least by the extended family. In these tribes, the women are having lots of babies, therefore how is this related to first world women who use the contraceptive pill? Women living in our individualized world cannot be compared to women living in collectivist tribal cultures.
The most beneficial characteristic of promiscuous first world women is a man’s capacity to say “no” to them.
Unmarried doesn’t mean that they are born to single mothers though. Out of that 49% (UK example) most children will still be born to two parents in a monogamous relationship, therefore the writers points are perfectly valid.
I agree the examples used by the writer probably wouldn’t lead to the best outcomes for children in western society, however she never made that point to begin with, it’s something you’ve shoehorned into your reply, answering a question that wasn’t asked
Yes Seb. ” assuming it’s children you’re thinking about”.
Olympia here doesn’t seem particularly concerned about the children and, as Arthur points out below, the consequences for the children are often disastrous.
You sir are an Empirical Utilitarian Extremist and your “Malinformation” is a threat to Democracy. Social Science is not the boring process of repeating experiments over and over…it is the Science of trusting politically motivated Social Planning Experts to run statistics through an Equity algorithm and then reinterpret the outcomes in the name of social progress.
Let me guess…you also question Modern Monetary Theory and doubt the wisdom and feasibility of Net Zero by 2030!! To quote some of my favorite Progressive Journalists “You may harbor right wing beliefs.”
Don’t be prescriptive or very dogmatic in transcribing evolutionary theory to the perceived advantages of monogamous commitment as an antidote to misery of modern relational dynamics. In.the end I think the writer straw man’s Perry and Harrington accusing them of lacking insight and nuance about the hard won gains of female liberation. I simply don’t see that, which in the end for me makes the whole article rather pointless
Parts of this essay remind me of a saying I heard 60 odd years ago,
”In, [insert an English county of your choice], they f..k all the year round and share the babies out at Christmas.”
But aren’t there more women in England and Wales than Himba in South America?
Any disadvantage to single parenting in the West is entirely due to economics. these families are financially poorer.
Sorry Seb but since I am not a subscriber, I cannot post here, unless I reply to a post, so I have chosen yours.
As expected this article is in contradiction because it concludes with the statement: “Harrington tells us to reject the contraceptive pill” yet most of the article highlights subsistence tribal cultures that do not have the contraceptive pill and whose primary (economic) productive character is collectivism and who primary outcome of sexual activity is reproduction, with the children raised by the tribal group or at least by the extended family. In these tribes, the women are having lots of babies, therefore how is this related to first world women who use the contraceptive pill? Women living in our individualized world cannot be compared to women living in collectivist tribal cultures.
The most beneficial characteristic of promiscuous first world women is a man’s capacity to say “no” to them.
“In 2021, more babies – 51% – were born to unmarried mothers in England and Wales than to those in a marriage or civil partnership for the first time since records began in 1845″ – University of Manchester, Aug 25th, 2022.
The Himba, at 48% aren’t I’m afraid the highest ever recorded. They aren’t even close.
KidsData.org tells us that for 2016, 64.8% of babies born to African AmericanBlack women in California were born to unmarried mothers. Incredibly this is 4.9% lower than the US average for that year for the same racial demographic. (Hispanics in both cases are just above 50%). Goodness knows what the numbers are for the communities with the highest “sociosexuality”.
It took me 5 minutes to find the above data. People decry a lowered level of trust in experts, but it’s hardly surprising if would-be experts can’t be bothered to get basic facts right, and then make entirely incorrect claims as a result.
Anyway, if the Himba have a society where socio-economic outcomes for kids are the same regardless of the marital status of their parents, good for them. The problem in modern societies is that evidence appears to show that the socio-economics outcomes for those born outside of wedlock are worse than those born and raised in a two-parent family. So if it’s ethics you’re seeking, then rather than obsessing about what various other writers have said, assuming it’s children you’re thinking about, maybe the answer lies in what is in their best interests, not your own.
It’s pretty hilarious. All the research shows conclusively that committed, married couples are the happiest people, are the most economically successful, have the most frequent and best sex, and their children have BY FAR the best social, educational and economic outcomes. Yet people still grasp at straws to justify getting themselves some on the side. Sad, so sad. Think with your brain, not your nether regions.
Indeed but that doesn’t necessarily mean that marriage is necessarily good thing for everyone. It could be that those who marry and choose to remain married have personality traits that give them and optimistic view of life as well as greater control over emotion which causes them to get married and remain so.
I had hoped it was a deliberate choice rather than a feeling, thus sleeping around outside of marriage would be unfaithful as well as wounding the other spouses trust.
Well of course. No one ever said this applies to 100% of the population.
Right, but if it’s good for 80% of the population, it behooves society to enforce that norm. In the past when there were strict norms around marriage and family, lots of people still didn’t marry. There are always exceptions. The fact is that a universal societal norm of monogamous, faithful marriages, that are fairly difficult (not impossible) to get out of, would improve the lives of many, many more people (especially children) than it would hurt.
“Monogamous marriage is good for 80 percent of the population. Therefore we should make it fairly difficult (not impossible) for the 20 percent who are miserable to get out of their miserable marriages.”
Nice strawman. You assert without evidence that 20% of people are “miserable” in their marriages. Lots of marriages end because one partner is bored, or cheats with a younger/richer/more attractive alternative. Just because you’re not completely happy, you shouldn’t be able to blithely blow up your marriage. You can end a marriage more easily than any other single contract in the world. That’s insane.
The idea of making divorce difficult, but not impossible, is so that the truly miserable put in the effort to get out (it’s worth it for them), and the merely bored or infatuated, suck it up and try to make their marriage better,
Lots of assumptions generalizations and judgements there, Arthur.
You’re doing the same thing.
You’re doing the same thing.
Lots of assumptions generalizations and judgements there, Arthur.
Exactly! Arthur wants to “enforce” people to marry. Sounds like a good start to a happy relationship!!
Yes sorry. It should be difficult but not impossible. I repeat, not impossible. If you really want out you will do what it takes.
Nice strawman. You assert without evidence that 20% of people are “miserable” in their marriages. Lots of marriages end because one partner is bored, or cheats with a younger/richer/more attractive alternative. Just because you’re not completely happy, you shouldn’t be able to blithely blow up your marriage. You can end a marriage more easily than any other single contract in the world. That’s insane.
The idea of making divorce difficult, but not impossible, is so that the truly miserable put in the effort to get out (it’s worth it for them), and the merely bored or infatuated, suck it up and try to make their marriage better,
Exactly! Arthur wants to “enforce” people to marry. Sounds like a good start to a happy relationship!!
Yes sorry. It should be difficult but not impossible. I repeat, not impossible. If you really want out you will do what it takes.
You lost me with the “enforce”.
Really? Doesn’t society currently enforce the norm of not using racist language? The norm of not cat-calling women on the street? Enforcing norms is a good thing if the norm is good.
Forcing people to get married is a far cry from outlawing racist language.
Forcing people to get married is a far cry from outlawing racist language.
Really? Doesn’t society currently enforce the norm of not using racist language? The norm of not cat-calling women on the street? Enforcing norms is a good thing if the norm is good.
Absolutely not true.
“Monogamous marriage is good for 80 percent of the population. Therefore we should make it fairly difficult (not impossible) for the 20 percent who are miserable to get out of their miserable marriages.”
You lost me with the “enforce”.
Absolutely not true.
Exactly! There are so many factors at play.
There are so many different reasons why marriages work or don’t work. It’s impossible to list all the factors.
I had hoped it was a deliberate choice rather than a feeling, thus sleeping around outside of marriage would be unfaithful as well as wounding the other spouses trust.
Well of course. No one ever said this applies to 100% of the population.
Right, but if it’s good for 80% of the population, it behooves society to enforce that norm. In the past when there were strict norms around marriage and family, lots of people still didn’t marry. There are always exceptions. The fact is that a universal societal norm of monogamous, faithful marriages, that are fairly difficult (not impossible) to get out of, would improve the lives of many, many more people (especially children) than it would hurt.
Exactly! There are so many factors at play.
There are so many different reasons why marriages work or don’t work. It’s impossible to list all the factors.
I think the point in the article is that as it is clearly not always true that committed, married couples are the happiest people etc., (Which I don’t think holds true at all if you compare never married people to married people – i.e. divorced people that are certainly less happy and successful for all sorts of reasons bring down the average of the unmarried dramatically) there are often ways found to deal with unhappy monogamous relationships that are less restrictive than “suck it up”.
Of course. Nothing is ALWAYS true of anything about us humans. The question is “What is MOSTLY true?”
Well what used to be true is vanishing as we become more and more immoral.
I wouldn’t say that.I suspect It’s more that with so many means of commication we hear about it more.
I wouldn’t say that.I suspect It’s more that with so many means of commication we hear about it more.
It may be mostly true, but the point of the article is that, accepting it’s not always true, it’s not unreasonable to think about the best ways to manage the situation when it’s not true, in the knowledge that humans are flawed beings and will probably not just do what’s best for society at significant cost to themselves for the rest of their lives.
Well what used to be true is vanishing as we become more and more immoral.
It may be mostly true, but the point of the article is that, accepting it’s not always true, it’s not unreasonable to think about the best ways to manage the situation when it’s not true, in the knowledge that humans are flawed beings and will probably not just do what’s best for society at significant cost to themselves for the rest of their lives.
Of course. Nothing is ALWAYS true of anything about us humans. The question is “What is MOSTLY true?”
While being a big fan of marriage from kids and society point of view, I am not sure marriage equates happiness and more for the married couple.
Firstly, those stats are probably clouded by the fact that marriage is an option only for well off men, as practically no women, no matter how much she bleats about “equality”, will marry someone who earns less. Also, marriage has collapsed amongst poorer welfare classes (partly due to the same reason). So, high happiness night be correlated not to marriage, but rather higher wealth and income amongst married couples.
Secondly, speaking for my circle of friends and close colleagues, men are increasingly unhappy with the concept of marriage. Essentially, you exist in a society that vilifies your role while still imposing “male” responsibilities such as chasing money and missing out on family life. Add to that the highly biased family courts, and the typical behaviour of women both during difficult patches in a marriage and while ending it, and it just leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
I strongly believe the institution of marriage is going to see an utter collapse in the next generation. Which is a huge loss from the perspective of kids, but then….while I am happy to fulfil my responsibilities, if I had a son would I really recommend him to do the same? Doubtful.
I have found that marriage does bring emotional sescurity if both honour their commitment. I was an orphan having been sexually abused in an orphanage for nigh on a year. Before marriage I spent a lot of time thinking about women dating and stuff, but marriage gives me an emotional settlement that I didn’t have before. Of course if you are not called to marriage you can still be emotionally secure but I couldn’t until I was.
Sorry to hear about your experience at the orphanage and glad that married life has worked well for you. Yes, marriage does have its very large positives and I would agree with you that it completes you as a person and emotionally.
Personally, don’t regret marrying and becoming a father at all. Point is, though, a lot of the emotional security and fulfilment comes through a) bring a responsible partner and father, which gives you a sense of purpose in life and b) the sense that come what may, and no matter how harshly life treats you, the wife and kids will always be with you and on your side.
Which is why the lax and biased laws on divorce and child custody are so toxic, because they cut off those pillars of marital security and purpose. Harms everybody concerned really, though thankfully many marriages such as yours do hold strong even today.
Sorry to hear about your experience at the orphanage and glad that married life has worked well for you. Yes, marriage does have its very large positives and I would agree with you that it completes you as a person and emotionally.
Personally, don’t regret marrying and becoming a father at all. Point is, though, a lot of the emotional security and fulfilment comes through a) bring a responsible partner and father, which gives you a sense of purpose in life and b) the sense that come what may, and no matter how harshly life treats you, the wife and kids will always be with you and on your side.
Which is why the lax and biased laws on divorce and child custody are so toxic, because they cut off those pillars of marital security and purpose. Harms everybody concerned really, though thankfully many marriages such as yours do hold strong even today.
“…practically no women, no matter how much she bleats about “equality”, will marry someone who earns less.”
You have apparently never walked through a Walmart in any smaller town in the U.S.
There is an element of truth to this, as the McDonald’s working wife supporting the unemployed redneck husband is a thing here, but I’m not sure how pervasive it is or how well it translates to the rest of the world, and I’m sure we shouldn’t hold it up as an ideal.
Certainly not an ideal but it’s very pervasive in middle America. That’s why the stats about relationships and marriage are so iffy and middle class.
Many states in America have very different cultures and values. In the midwest couples tend to get married right out of high school and stay married their whole lives. The woman is often a vrigin and will only have one sexual partner her whole life. The family will tend to stay close to the extended family and it becomes a tribe or village. Life revolves around the tribe, as close to the Hima as we get. The east and west coasts of America have entirely different values, not better or worse, just different. The nuclear family is often far away from the original family, and relatives.
Many states in America have very different cultures and values. In the midwest couples tend to get married right out of high school and stay married their whole lives. The woman is often a vrigin and will only have one sexual partner her whole life. The family will tend to stay close to the extended family and it becomes a tribe or village. Life revolves around the tribe, as close to the Hima as we get. The east and west coasts of America have entirely different values, not better or worse, just different. The nuclear family is often far away from the original family, and relatives.
Certainly not an ideal but it’s very pervasive in middle America. That’s why the stats about relationships and marriage are so iffy and middle class.
Well said. It’s a class thing.
Depends on the desirability of both doesn’t it?
There is an element of truth to this, as the McDonald’s working wife supporting the unemployed redneck husband is a thing here, but I’m not sure how pervasive it is or how well it translates to the rest of the world, and I’m sure we shouldn’t hold it up as an ideal.
Well said. It’s a class thing.
Depends on the desirability of both doesn’t it?
This argument while trotted out a lot doesn’t even make any sense. Only men who are well-off can marry because most women expect men to make more. Even if that was as true as you say, I mean dude, do you think poor and working class women don’t exist? If you work minimum wage a guy who gets paid 20 dollars an hour is more. And so it goes, men can easily find women making less than they are. The problem would be there only for men the very, very poor and well off professional class. But the latter marry the most of all groups.
“The typical behavior of women in rough patches in a marriage and while ending it”–what does this even mean? That all women behave the same way, I mean dude, any man who says that is just a sexist little so and so. I look at my circle of friends as well and I don’t see any of us behaving the same way in quarrels.
And while family court can be very idiosyncratic judge to judge, overall (and especially in the big & liberal states like NY and CA) they are certainly not biased towards either gender–custodial vrs. non-custodial parent is where things sometimes fall down. (Most people arrange some variant of joint and never go to family court)
You talk of your circle of friends and this convincing you that marriage is a bad deal for men but it strikes me that perhaps you and your friends choose badly in mates, that is to say you choose a very specific type of women, no doubt because she looks a certain way, and acts a certain way. We all know the type. Perhaps rather than trash all women and make grand pronouncements about women, you might instead choose women who are individuals, whose character interests you as much as anything.
They don’t send you out chasing the dollar at the expense of family life (though the corporate world might, it is not family friendly). They are looking for a friend, lover and helpmeet not a meal ticket. And while looks and chemistry still matter, they want a man of character most of all.
This is your friendly advice from your online feminist. It is also what you might be told centuries before.
“you work minimum wage a guy who gets paid 20 dollars an hour is more.”
Part of the problem is that 20 dollar an hour blue collar jobs are much scarcer than a couple of decades back
“The typical behavior of women in rough patches in a marriage and while ending it”–what does this even mean? That all women behave the same way”
To a large extent, or “typically “, yes. For instance, a significant proportion (not all but a lot) use the child as a blackmailing tool to an extent, or expect to get the house even if entirely paid for by the husband.
“while family court can be very idiosyncratic judg….they are certainly not biased towards either gender”
What they are biased towards, is the concept of a stay at home, traditional mother.
So, if a woman doesn’t work, or earns less than the father (most marriages) plus if the woman plays nasty with allegations of “abuse”, that’s it.
The default therefore is that if you are a father, you are just a wallet.
“perhaps you and your friends choose badly in mates, that is to say you choose a very specific type of women”
The first part is obviously correct.
The second part is only partly true – the set I am most familiar with is restricted by social class and education , so all college educated women, usually in professional roles, usually in corporate firms. I can’t speak of other groups, certainly, but I have found behaviour to be pretty consistent within this set.
“They don’t send you out chasing the dollar at the expense of family life….they want a man of character most of all.”
Nice theory. The “very specific” women I know think differently. Though character does matter, pay checks matter more…much, much more so than for men when they look for a partner.
“you work minimum wage a guy who gets paid 20 dollars an hour is more.”
Part of the problem is that 20 dollar an hour blue collar jobs are much scarcer than a couple of decades back
“The typical behavior of women in rough patches in a marriage and while ending it”–what does this even mean? That all women behave the same way”
To a large extent, or “typically “, yes. For instance, a significant proportion (not all but a lot) use the child as a blackmailing tool to an extent, or expect to get the house even if entirely paid for by the husband.
“while family court can be very idiosyncratic judg….they are certainly not biased towards either gender”
What they are biased towards, is the concept of a stay at home, traditional mother.
So, if a woman doesn’t work, or earns less than the father (most marriages) plus if the woman plays nasty with allegations of “abuse”, that’s it.
The default therefore is that if you are a father, you are just a wallet.
“perhaps you and your friends choose badly in mates, that is to say you choose a very specific type of women”
The first part is obviously correct.
The second part is only partly true – the set I am most familiar with is restricted by social class and education , so all college educated women, usually in professional roles, usually in corporate firms. I can’t speak of other groups, certainly, but I have found behaviour to be pretty consistent within this set.
“They don’t send you out chasing the dollar at the expense of family life….they want a man of character most of all.”
Nice theory. The “very specific” women I know think differently. Though character does matter, pay checks matter more…much, much more so than for men when they look for a partner.
I agree with your first sentence, and I’ll add that change always happens at the margins. The people who aren’t getting married today but would have might well have had unhealthy and dysfunctional marriages, or repeated infidelities, or what have you. Equating marriage and happiness is a bridge too far. I too am worried about a massive collapse in marriage coming from the male side for the reasons you mentioned. It’s broadly agreed in our society today that a woman should earn the same salary as a man for the same job, and that all or at least almost all careers should be open to both biological sexes. If that is true, then why should income be a primary factor for women in dating? The data, as you point out, suggests that while women have gone out into the workplace and are rapidly closing the pay gap, their dating behavior has not kept pace. I suspect, as you do, that the entire institution of marriage as it has existed in western society is going to collapse. What, if anything, replaces it is anybody’s guess at this point. Perhaps we’ll end up resembling the Himba, or something entirely novel.
It takes a village, and that’s what the Himba have. No child is abandoned.
It’s lovely for them, but they have a unique culture that evolved organically over hundreds or thousands of years. We have the decaying zombified corpse of western civilization, still shambling along as it falls apart while a cadre of meddling overlords and know-it-all intellectuals tries to play Frankenstein on it to make it more ‘fair’ and ‘equitable’. Not gonna lie. I don’t see a way to get from where we are to where they are without a whole lot of chaos, disorder, and destruction in between.
We never will get back to the village.
We never will get back to the village.
It’s lovely for them, but they have a unique culture that evolved organically over hundreds or thousands of years. We have the decaying zombified corpse of western civilization, still shambling along as it falls apart while a cadre of meddling overlords and know-it-all intellectuals tries to play Frankenstein on it to make it more ‘fair’ and ‘equitable’. Not gonna lie. I don’t see a way to get from where we are to where they are without a whole lot of chaos, disorder, and destruction in between.
It takes a village, and that’s what the Himba have. No child is abandoned.
I’d argue it’s that people who are happier, content and financially comfortable are more likely to then get married, rather than marriage being the reason for them being happier, content and financially secure.
Due to high house prices and ridiculous rents, the youngsters today spend years trying to scrape together a house deposit, which obviously puts a wedding on the back burner until they have a family home. By this point the biological clock is ticking so they have the kids before the wedding as well. Once these have happened marriage is usually the last thing on the list, so to get that far the relationship has already proven to be fairly stable, and thus skews the statistics in marriages favour
And if you had a daughter?
It’s always bewildered me why gay and lesbian couples want to marry. There must be something to it.
It’s always bewildered me why gay and lesbian couples want to marry. There must be something to it.
Trad marriage vs entitled feminist version of marriage…
I have found that marriage does bring emotional sescurity if both honour their commitment. I was an orphan having been sexually abused in an orphanage for nigh on a year. Before marriage I spent a lot of time thinking about women dating and stuff, but marriage gives me an emotional settlement that I didn’t have before. Of course if you are not called to marriage you can still be emotionally secure but I couldn’t until I was.
“…practically no women, no matter how much she bleats about “equality”, will marry someone who earns less.”
You have apparently never walked through a Walmart in any smaller town in the U.S.
This argument while trotted out a lot doesn’t even make any sense. Only men who are well-off can marry because most women expect men to make more. Even if that was as true as you say, I mean dude, do you think poor and working class women don’t exist? If you work minimum wage a guy who gets paid 20 dollars an hour is more. And so it goes, men can easily find women making less than they are. The problem would be there only for men the very, very poor and well off professional class. But the latter marry the most of all groups.
“The typical behavior of women in rough patches in a marriage and while ending it”–what does this even mean? That all women behave the same way, I mean dude, any man who says that is just a sexist little so and so. I look at my circle of friends as well and I don’t see any of us behaving the same way in quarrels.
And while family court can be very idiosyncratic judge to judge, overall (and especially in the big & liberal states like NY and CA) they are certainly not biased towards either gender–custodial vrs. non-custodial parent is where things sometimes fall down. (Most people arrange some variant of joint and never go to family court)
You talk of your circle of friends and this convincing you that marriage is a bad deal for men but it strikes me that perhaps you and your friends choose badly in mates, that is to say you choose a very specific type of women, no doubt because she looks a certain way, and acts a certain way. We all know the type. Perhaps rather than trash all women and make grand pronouncements about women, you might instead choose women who are individuals, whose character interests you as much as anything.
They don’t send you out chasing the dollar at the expense of family life (though the corporate world might, it is not family friendly). They are looking for a friend, lover and helpmeet not a meal ticket. And while looks and chemistry still matter, they want a man of character most of all.
This is your friendly advice from your online feminist. It is also what you might be told centuries before.
I agree with your first sentence, and I’ll add that change always happens at the margins. The people who aren’t getting married today but would have might well have had unhealthy and dysfunctional marriages, or repeated infidelities, or what have you. Equating marriage and happiness is a bridge too far. I too am worried about a massive collapse in marriage coming from the male side for the reasons you mentioned. It’s broadly agreed in our society today that a woman should earn the same salary as a man for the same job, and that all or at least almost all careers should be open to both biological sexes. If that is true, then why should income be a primary factor for women in dating? The data, as you point out, suggests that while women have gone out into the workplace and are rapidly closing the pay gap, their dating behavior has not kept pace. I suspect, as you do, that the entire institution of marriage as it has existed in western society is going to collapse. What, if anything, replaces it is anybody’s guess at this point. Perhaps we’ll end up resembling the Himba, or something entirely novel.
I’d argue it’s that people who are happier, content and financially comfortable are more likely to then get married, rather than marriage being the reason for them being happier, content and financially secure.
Due to high house prices and ridiculous rents, the youngsters today spend years trying to scrape together a house deposit, which obviously puts a wedding on the back burner until they have a family home. By this point the biological clock is ticking so they have the kids before the wedding as well. Once these have happened marriage is usually the last thing on the list, so to get that far the relationship has already proven to be fairly stable, and thus skews the statistics in marriages favour
And if you had a daughter?
Trad marriage vs entitled feminist version of marriage…
Nearly all abortions are related to sex outside of marriage in Britain.Over 9M now and counting. Progress?
As opposed 9 million more unwanted children?
They should get their chance like everyone else did.
If that were actually a good reason it would apply just the same to a week old child.
They should get their chance like everyone else did.
If that were actually a good reason it would apply just the same to a week old child.
As opposed 9 million more unwanted children?
So those studies don’t show that. They show that men are happier married than not and women are happier not married. They also show that people raising children together don’t tend to see themselves as happiest.
I myself think a happy marriage is something to recommend. But an unhappy one? Nope. I am the child of two people who divorced their spouses. My mother would be dead if she stayed with her spouse. If she lived I expect she’d be better off that way. My father would most likely be a drunk and his first marriage would very possibly turned very, very bad. Not because his first wife was a bad person but she was not the right person for him and despite not being a drinker herself, was not useful for her sobriety.
I’ve got many other people I know whose lack of divorce would eventually spiral into very bad things. While others simply settle into lives of quiet desperation, interrupted by the kind of hopeless anger and fury we all know is so good for children.
If all the people i know divorced hadn’t those stats would look very different.
Exactly. Well said. I wish my parents had divorced, better yet never married each other. We haven’t heard the word dysfunctional families yet, have we?!
Not every marriage is dysfunctional. Those that are less than ideal should be polite to each other until their children are up and out. Once a kid is born rearing them in a stable home is priority number one. They didn’t make the best choice? Too bad, their needs should be placed last. Abuse is something different of course.
No one is saying every marriage is dysfuntional, but most families are.
No one is saying every marriage is dysfuntional, but most families are.
Exactly. Well said. I wish my parents had divorced, better yet never married each other. We haven’t heard the word dysfunctional families yet, have we?!
Not every marriage is dysfunctional. Those that are less than ideal should be polite to each other until their children are up and out. Once a kid is born rearing them in a stable home is priority number one. They didn’t make the best choice? Too bad, their needs should be placed last. Abuse is something different of course.
They’re not mutually exclusive. There are good marriages where partners (usually men) get something on the side.
The point of this article, my take-away, is that cultural groups make their own rule according to what works best in their time and place, not according to any fixed natural law of behavior, and so the standard trope that men are by nature promiscuous and women chaste cannot be used to justify a particular social model.
It’s disappointing that the comments have shifted to another trope, that, put simply, statistics ‘prove’ that without a Dad in the house to discipline the kids, the boys will inevitably grow up to be criminals and wards of the State. If we return to a “traditional” Judaeo-Christian family model with men in charge, the thinking goes, that won’t happen.
The problem is that this line of reasoning ignores larger, extremely powerful social conditions that, statistics show the–in all cultural, geographic, national and economic conditions–poverty is the greatest determining factor of family unity, children’s health, crime, abuse, and longevity.
I would rewrite @Arthur G’s statement, that “committed, married couples are the happiest people, are the most economically successful” to this:
“Economically successful couples are the most committed and happiest people.” They are most often economically successful because they are born into conditions that foster it–as children they had access to good schools, tutoring when needed, complete medical care, a good diet, and economic security in their homes and the married others with the same background.
It’s a fools mission, or worse, to try to change our fellow citizen’s dating, sex, and marriage habits. Punishing (or simply blaming) single parents as if they were all “welfare mothers” is counter productive. (I was recently in a hospital were a good percentage of the amazing nursing staff were single moms).
We can’t legislate morals, as much as we might try. Our community leaders will still be hooking up in Men’s toilets, and college kids are notoriously self-policing. But it is in the interests of the state, and within the means and responsibilities of the state, to assure that children are all well fed, the complete medical care is always available, that they have good teachers and don’t go to school hungry, and that their parents are not living in fear of losing their jobs and facing eviction.
We treat poverty as, in one way or another, a moral failing, and it is–but the moral failing is the society that would rather try to enforce some “moral” hierarchy than care for its children.
Indeed but that doesn’t necessarily mean that marriage is necessarily good thing for everyone. It could be that those who marry and choose to remain married have personality traits that give them and optimistic view of life as well as greater control over emotion which causes them to get married and remain so.
I think the point in the article is that as it is clearly not always true that committed, married couples are the happiest people etc., (Which I don’t think holds true at all if you compare never married people to married people – i.e. divorced people that are certainly less happy and successful for all sorts of reasons bring down the average of the unmarried dramatically) there are often ways found to deal with unhappy monogamous relationships that are less restrictive than “suck it up”.
While being a big fan of marriage from kids and society point of view, I am not sure marriage equates happiness and more for the married couple.
Firstly, those stats are probably clouded by the fact that marriage is an option only for well off men, as practically no women, no matter how much she bleats about “equality”, will marry someone who earns less. Also, marriage has collapsed amongst poorer welfare classes (partly due to the same reason). So, high happiness night be correlated not to marriage, but rather higher wealth and income amongst married couples.
Secondly, speaking for my circle of friends and close colleagues, men are increasingly unhappy with the concept of marriage. Essentially, you exist in a society that vilifies your role while still imposing “male” responsibilities such as chasing money and missing out on family life. Add to that the highly biased family courts, and the typical behaviour of women both during difficult patches in a marriage and while ending it, and it just leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
I strongly believe the institution of marriage is going to see an utter collapse in the next generation. Which is a huge loss from the perspective of kids, but then….while I am happy to fulfil my responsibilities, if I had a son would I really recommend him to do the same? Doubtful.
Nearly all abortions are related to sex outside of marriage in Britain.Over 9M now and counting. Progress?
So those studies don’t show that. They show that men are happier married than not and women are happier not married. They also show that people raising children together don’t tend to see themselves as happiest.
I myself think a happy marriage is something to recommend. But an unhappy one? Nope. I am the child of two people who divorced their spouses. My mother would be dead if she stayed with her spouse. If she lived I expect she’d be better off that way. My father would most likely be a drunk and his first marriage would very possibly turned very, very bad. Not because his first wife was a bad person but she was not the right person for him and despite not being a drinker herself, was not useful for her sobriety.
I’ve got many other people I know whose lack of divorce would eventually spiral into very bad things. While others simply settle into lives of quiet desperation, interrupted by the kind of hopeless anger and fury we all know is so good for children.
If all the people i know divorced hadn’t those stats would look very different.
They’re not mutually exclusive. There are good marriages where partners (usually men) get something on the side.
The point of this article, my take-away, is that cultural groups make their own rule according to what works best in their time and place, not according to any fixed natural law of behavior, and so the standard trope that men are by nature promiscuous and women chaste cannot be used to justify a particular social model.
It’s disappointing that the comments have shifted to another trope, that, put simply, statistics ‘prove’ that without a Dad in the house to discipline the kids, the boys will inevitably grow up to be criminals and wards of the State. If we return to a “traditional” Judaeo-Christian family model with men in charge, the thinking goes, that won’t happen.
The problem is that this line of reasoning ignores larger, extremely powerful social conditions that, statistics show the–in all cultural, geographic, national and economic conditions–poverty is the greatest determining factor of family unity, children’s health, crime, abuse, and longevity.
I would rewrite @Arthur G’s statement, that “committed, married couples are the happiest people, are the most economically successful” to this:
“Economically successful couples are the most committed and happiest people.” They are most often economically successful because they are born into conditions that foster it–as children they had access to good schools, tutoring when needed, complete medical care, a good diet, and economic security in their homes and the married others with the same background.
It’s a fools mission, or worse, to try to change our fellow citizen’s dating, sex, and marriage habits. Punishing (or simply blaming) single parents as if they were all “welfare mothers” is counter productive. (I was recently in a hospital were a good percentage of the amazing nursing staff were single moms).
We can’t legislate morals, as much as we might try. Our community leaders will still be hooking up in Men’s toilets, and college kids are notoriously self-policing. But it is in the interests of the state, and within the means and responsibilities of the state, to assure that children are all well fed, the complete medical care is always available, that they have good teachers and don’t go to school hungry, and that their parents are not living in fear of losing their jobs and facing eviction.
We treat poverty as, in one way or another, a moral failing, and it is–but the moral failing is the society that would rather try to enforce some “moral” hierarchy than care for its children.
It’s pretty hilarious. All the research shows conclusively that committed, married couples are the happiest people, are the most economically successful, have the most frequent and best sex, and their children have BY FAR the best social, educational and economic outcomes. Yet people still grasp at straws to justify getting themselves some on the side. Sad, so sad. Think with your brain, not your nether regions.
Are these successful societies? Have the Himba or the lowland Amazon tribes invented any useful gadgets, written books worth reading, raised their per capita GDP to the global average of $20,000?
Although I think people should do whatever they want as long as they don’t hurt anyone else, they shouldn’t produce children while doing it or else they are hurting someone – not just the child but everyone the child interacts with for the rest of her life will be an emotionally deprived child.
The recipe for a successful society seems to be one woman, one man, their biological children, and then it takes a village (on top of that). Life isn’t perfect and there will be exceptions, but it’s something to strive toward.
Defying all statistical data, Progressives have somehow managed to brand The Nuclear Family as an Oppressive structure.
One is oppressive for being white, married, recognising only two sexes and for not believing that one can change their sex.
What does that have to do with the topic?
What does that have to do with the topic?
No one has accused Progressives as being moral, insightful or even smart, but they are ideological and political. Why on earth would anyone listen to them unless they were willing to jump off a cliff like other lemmings?
What does that have to do with marriage. Just had to get it in,huh!?
What does that have to do with marriage. Just had to get it in,huh!?
Perhaps it is for some. But branding doesn’t make it so. The dysfuntional family existed and then people took note and gave it a name.
One is oppressive for being white, married, recognising only two sexes and for not believing that one can change their sex.
No one has accused Progressives as being moral, insightful or even smart, but they are ideological and political. Why on earth would anyone listen to them unless they were willing to jump off a cliff like other lemmings?
Perhaps it is for some. But branding doesn’t make it so. The dysfuntional family existed and then people took note and gave it a name.
She isn’t assessing whether they are successful societies is she? That is a big topic in itself – how do we define successful? And she isn’t even denying that children in this society do better if parents are monogamous and provide a loving family is she? Like many making comments in Unherd, you seem to want to have an argument that just isn’t in the article. Can’t we just read carefully what she says and forget culture wars for second.
Well said, and my reaction to many of the comments being made too. The article is primarily about sex-drives and how these are managed in different cultures. There is no “right” or “wrong” way and it’s perfectly clear that women have a biological imperative every bit as high as men. The strategies involved to try to ensure the production and successful raising of successive generations has conditioned (socialised) people into believing all sorts of nonsense, particularly where the males are dominant in economic terms and naturally wish that to be continued. It’s that which drives many of the attitudes and responses, often under the guise of “morality”. It’s been rumbled.
Surprised you’ve had down-votes for this, Steve. It’s self-evident. I hadn’t realised UnHerd had so many readers at the Vatican.
Thanks Peter. I was expecting downvotes as par for the course for pointing out the actuality of sex drives as opposed to the conditional layers that different societies impose upon them, and in different ways. This is as clear as day in the article, which has even been termed “pointless” by one reader!
I upvoted him. And please check out my comment, wherever it went, just so you know you’re not a lone voice.
Thanks Peter. I was expecting downvotes as par for the course for pointing out the actuality of sex drives as opposed to the conditional layers that different societies impose upon them, and in different ways. This is as clear as day in the article, which has even been termed “pointless” by one reader!
I upvoted him. And please check out my comment, wherever it went, just so you know you’re not a lone voice.
Steve- you’re acting as though cultural practices have no impact on outcomes and quality of life. Cultural practices explain for instance why Afghanistan is effectively stuck in the 6th century. Would you agree that the culture of the modern west creates objectively better social conditions and outcomes than we see in Afghanistan?
Afghanistan’s culture can not rationally be explained by Colonialism. So when you say there are no wrong ways to model a culture, are you not ascribing to cultural relativism?
Would you agree that the Family Structure is the foundation of a Culture?
I’m “acting” like nothing of the sort. We’ve no idea what family structures looked like in the tens of millenia before recorded civilisation. Structures have evolved further since settled communities arose with agriculture, and societies will continue to evolve whether those who disapprove (and downvote accordingly) like it or not.
I’m not a downvoter. I have to ask questions because you take wishy washy positions. I’m stating emphatically that cultures that promote the nuclear family as the foundation of their societies achieve markedly better outcomes than those that do not. Do you disagree?
Your strategy seems to be based on insult, e.g. “wishy washy positions”. There’s absolutely nothing that’s unclear in what i’ve posted, and i disagree to the extent that i’ve just told you – that we have no idea what successful societies looked like in the 99% of human history prior to settled communities. Those pre-history periods were evidently successful, and we don’t actually know whether our current period will be successful or not, but there’s a lot of hand-wringing going on and it’s been that way during the times you think are successful.
What i’m saying to you is hold your fire, and try to take a longer perspective.
Dude that’s not an insult. Insults are personal attacks. You just said we have no idea if pre-historical societies were successful and then you claim they were “evidently successful.” The only way to resolve that contradiction is if you’re claiming that the mere survival of the species equals “success.”
We have a massive body of historical literature. At least several thousand years. If biological parents raising their own kids wasn’t the best way to model a stable functioning society, some group would have the receipts by now. The only groups that ever tried it with economic success were hyper-imperialist military dictatorships that indoctrinated the young to be soldiers. I think it’s safe to say nobody wants that.
“Dude” ? I rest my case regarding your attitude.
The massive body of historical literature you cite is filled with documentation of societies trying to control the human sexual impulse by one means or another, which then becomes their “morality”. Until you recognise that basic point – which forms the basis of the article – you’ll come nowhere near addressing the ahistorical perspective that you’re defending, and which forms the basis of most of the negative responses to it.
You are not making a novel argument. It’s the same Social Constructivism seen in every branch of Critical Studies and Postmodern Philosophy. IE All values and beliefs including scientific observations are imposed by the Dominant Group on the Minority and only appear to be fixed values because they’re repetitively performed by the culture.
It’s a surreal absurdist Philosophy and I think you know it. Gender roles have and will always remain constant because biological reality doesn’t care about the feelings of contrarians. Only those with XX chromosomes can give birth and produce breast milk and no amount of transformational tinkering with the human genome will change that.
This isn’t about gender roles. You’re way off topic.
This isn’t about gender roles. You’re way off topic.
Exactly. My upvote didn’t register. Never could understand Unherd’s voting. There was a zero, so shouldn’t my uptick have made it one?
You are not making a novel argument. It’s the same Social Constructivism seen in every branch of Critical Studies and Postmodern Philosophy. IE All values and beliefs including scientific observations are imposed by the Dominant Group on the Minority and only appear to be fixed values because they’re repetitively performed by the culture.
It’s a surreal absurdist Philosophy and I think you know it. Gender roles have and will always remain constant because biological reality doesn’t care about the feelings of contrarians. Only those with XX chromosomes can give birth and produce breast milk and no amount of transformational tinkering with the human genome will change that.
Exactly. My upvote didn’t register. Never could understand Unherd’s voting. There was a zero, so shouldn’t my uptick have made it one?
“Dude”? That’s insulting and patronizing.
The pedantic pettiness of Leftists has no limit does it.
The pedantic pettiness of Leftists has no limit does it.
“Dude” ? I rest my case regarding your attitude.
The massive body of historical literature you cite is filled with documentation of societies trying to control the human sexual impulse by one means or another, which then becomes their “morality”. Until you recognise that basic point – which forms the basis of the article – you’ll come nowhere near addressing the ahistorical perspective that you’re defending, and which forms the basis of most of the negative responses to it.
“Dude”? That’s insulting and patronizing.
Dude that’s not an insult. Insults are personal attacks. You just said we have no idea if pre-historical societies were successful and then you claim they were “evidently successful.” The only way to resolve that contradiction is if you’re claiming that the mere survival of the species equals “success.”
We have a massive body of historical literature. At least several thousand years. If biological parents raising their own kids wasn’t the best way to model a stable functioning society, some group would have the receipts by now. The only groups that ever tried it with economic success were hyper-imperialist military dictatorships that indoctrinated the young to be soldiers. I think it’s safe to say nobody wants that.
Yes I disagree. What about Afghanistan?!
Your strategy seems to be based on insult, e.g. “wishy washy positions”. There’s absolutely nothing that’s unclear in what i’ve posted, and i disagree to the extent that i’ve just told you – that we have no idea what successful societies looked like in the 99% of human history prior to settled communities. Those pre-history periods were evidently successful, and we don’t actually know whether our current period will be successful or not, but there’s a lot of hand-wringing going on and it’s been that way during the times you think are successful.
What i’m saying to you is hold your fire, and try to take a longer perspective.
Yes I disagree. What about Afghanistan?!
Well said.
I’m not a downvoter. I have to ask questions because you take wishy washy positions. I’m stating emphatically that cultures that promote the nuclear family as the foundation of their societies achieve markedly better outcomes than those that do not. Do you disagree?
Well said.
I’m “acting” like nothing of the sort. We’ve no idea what family structures looked like in the tens of millenia before recorded civilisation. Structures have evolved further since settled communities arose with agriculture, and societies will continue to evolve whether those who disapprove (and downvote accordingly) like it or not.
Surprised you’ve had down-votes for this, Steve. It’s self-evident. I hadn’t realised UnHerd had so many readers at the Vatican.
Steve- you’re acting as though cultural practices have no impact on outcomes and quality of life. Cultural practices explain for instance why Afghanistan is effectively stuck in the 6th century. Would you agree that the culture of the modern west creates objectively better social conditions and outcomes than we see in Afghanistan?
Afghanistan’s culture can not rationally be explained by Colonialism. So when you say there are no wrong ways to model a culture, are you not ascribing to cultural relativism?
Would you agree that the Family Structure is the foundation of a Culture?
“how do we define successful?”
Judging by the number of modern western women who are moving over to Himba-land, seems pretty clear .
Sounds like the search for an animal that may have had sex with it’s own gender to prove a point.
What?!
What?!
But there’s no supportive community.
Sounds like the search for an animal that may have had sex with it’s own gender to prove a point.
But there’s no supportive community.
I didn’t find much to get excited about in the piece. Personally I preferred the culture wars as you put it. That is what we are labouring under in this country and far more relelevant to me.
Yes, but they’re intertwined, everything is.
…as T Bone said when he talked about the “success” of a society..
…as T Bone said when he talked about the “success” of a society..
Yes, but they’re intertwined, everything is.
Well said.
Is the author squeaky clean in the culture war arena? As a
retired scientist I flickered at her fourth line – ‘No wonder it found a natural home among social conservatives.’ Didn’t
bode well for impartial research.Just me?
Well said, and my reaction to many of the comments being made too. The article is primarily about sex-drives and how these are managed in different cultures. There is no “right” or “wrong” way and it’s perfectly clear that women have a biological imperative every bit as high as men. The strategies involved to try to ensure the production and successful raising of successive generations has conditioned (socialised) people into believing all sorts of nonsense, particularly where the males are dominant in economic terms and naturally wish that to be continued. It’s that which drives many of the attitudes and responses, often under the guise of “morality”. It’s been rumbled.
“how do we define successful?”
Judging by the number of modern western women who are moving over to Himba-land, seems pretty clear .
I didn’t find much to get excited about in the piece. Personally I preferred the culture wars as you put it. That is what we are labouring under in this country and far more relelevant to me.
Well said.
Is the author squeaky clean in the culture war arena? As a
retired scientist I flickered at her fourth line – ‘No wonder it found a natural home among social conservatives.’ Didn’t
bode well for impartial research.Just me?
The problem with ‘people should do whatever they want as long as they don’t hurt anyone’ is that it is often only possible to know if anyone will by hurt then and there, and who is consequently hurt later cannot be known. It is often not even possible to ‘go with the odds.’
I was certainly hurt by being dumped in an orphanage with my brother. He became a criminal and I wasn’t rescued until I was 27 when I found faith. I would say that a large proportion of the orphans I knew were damaged. Especially by rejection.
Exactly and not only damaged by rejection. Rejection and then some. My grandmother was raised in an orphanage in victorian times and I can imagine it was Dickensian. She didn’t have the love to give my mother, who didn’t have the love to give her two daughters because she was in desperate need of it herself. She married a man who hadn’t gotten love either, so he had none to give anybody. Even though they stayed married, and my sister and I are alive, does that count as a successful marriege in the stats?
Success doesn’t appear in stats. That’s a value judgement. The stats only record marriages which end with divorce and those which don’t.
Value judgements based on your own life seem to pervade most of your comments, Clare.
Success doesn’t appear in stats. That’s a value judgement. The stats only record marriages which end with divorce and those which don’t.
Value judgements based on your own life seem to pervade most of your comments, Clare.
Exactly and not only damaged by rejection. Rejection and then some. My grandmother was raised in an orphanage in victorian times and I can imagine it was Dickensian. She didn’t have the love to give my mother, who didn’t have the love to give her two daughters because she was in desperate need of it herself. She married a man who hadn’t gotten love either, so he had none to give anybody. Even though they stayed married, and my sister and I are alive, does that count as a successful marriege in the stats?
I was certainly hurt by being dumped in an orphanage with my brother. He became a criminal and I wasn’t rescued until I was 27 when I found faith. I would say that a large proportion of the orphans I knew were damaged. Especially by rejection.
They’re SURVIVED so far, haven’t they, and reproduced themselves? Which is all that nature and evolutionary biology care about, and a sight more than the native tribes of Western Europe are managing at present.
Yes, that’s all nature cares about, for sure. But a life of quiet desperation isn’t enough.
Nature has no feelings so does not care.
For survival of the species, children must attain the age at which they can reproduce and support the infants. I suggest that children of happy supportive couples will have greater survival rates. Even if the difference is only a few percent, over many generations children of happy couples will predominate over unhappy ones.
A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History: Amazon.co.uk: Wade, Nicholas: 9781594206238: Books
I suggest one of the reasons for the success of the Protestant Religion in developing the Industrial Revolution is that priests were middle class and had children. As Mothers were responsible for teaching children to write, read and do maths, the size of the literate and numerate middle class was a higher proportion of the population than in Roman Catholic countries. A similar influence on intelligence occurs due to Rabbis and the Brahmins of India having families. In most cases the Mothers would have been middle class, literate and numerate.
The Buddhist say ” Where expectation exceeds reality, there is unhappiness “and The Daoists say ” Those who want more will never be satisfied “.
Nature has no feelings so does not care.
For survival of the species, children must attain the age at which they can reproduce and support the infants. I suggest that children of happy supportive couples will have greater survival rates. Even if the difference is only a few percent, over many generations children of happy couples will predominate over unhappy ones.
A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History: Amazon.co.uk: Wade, Nicholas: 9781594206238: Books
I suggest one of the reasons for the success of the Protestant Religion in developing the Industrial Revolution is that priests were middle class and had children. As Mothers were responsible for teaching children to write, read and do maths, the size of the literate and numerate middle class was a higher proportion of the population than in Roman Catholic countries. A similar influence on intelligence occurs due to Rabbis and the Brahmins of India having families. In most cases the Mothers would have been middle class, literate and numerate.
The Buddhist say ” Where expectation exceeds reality, there is unhappiness “and The Daoists say ” Those who want more will never be satisfied “.
Yes, that’s all nature cares about, for sure. But a life of quiet desperation isn’t enough.
Isn’t that what we’ve been striving for and here we are.
Defying all statistical data, Progressives have somehow managed to brand The Nuclear Family as an Oppressive structure.
She isn’t assessing whether they are successful societies is she? That is a big topic in itself – how do we define successful? And she isn’t even denying that children in this society do better if parents are monogamous and provide a loving family is she? Like many making comments in Unherd, you seem to want to have an argument that just isn’t in the article. Can’t we just read carefully what she says and forget culture wars for second.
The problem with ‘people should do whatever they want as long as they don’t hurt anyone’ is that it is often only possible to know if anyone will by hurt then and there, and who is consequently hurt later cannot be known. It is often not even possible to ‘go with the odds.’
They’re SURVIVED so far, haven’t they, and reproduced themselves? Which is all that nature and evolutionary biology care about, and a sight more than the native tribes of Western Europe are managing at present.
Isn’t that what we’ve been striving for and here we are.
Are these successful societies? Have the Himba or the lowland Amazon tribes invented any useful gadgets, written books worth reading, raised their per capita GDP to the global average of $20,000?
Although I think people should do whatever they want as long as they don’t hurt anyone else, they shouldn’t produce children while doing it or else they are hurting someone – not just the child but everyone the child interacts with for the rest of her life will be an emotionally deprived child.
The recipe for a successful society seems to be one woman, one man, their biological children, and then it takes a village (on top of that). Life isn’t perfect and there will be exceptions, but it’s something to strive toward.
I don’t think it’s just promiscuity. In my experience women want more, infinitely more, than men do, which is the driving factor behind their unhappiness.
They didn’t tell me. Is natural selection a factor ?
I wouldn’t think so. We are not animals in that sense. At least I hope not but sometimes wonder.
I’m not sure, but almost every woman I know can never just sit still and relax. There’s always some project or task that needs to get done.
Rubbish. That’s personality type. We’re all different.
No you’re not. You are trapped inside. You all have a lot in common to a disinterested outside observer.
Like all men have toxic masculinity in common so I’ve been told.
No you’re not. You are trapped inside. You all have a lot in common to a disinterested outside observer.
Like all men have toxic masculinity in common so I’ve been told.
Rubbish. That’s personality type. We’re all different.
It would be nice if it selected for quality not quantity.
I wouldn’t think so. We are not animals in that sense. At least I hope not but sometimes wonder.
I’m not sure, but almost every woman I know can never just sit still and relax. There’s always some project or task that needs to get done.
It would be nice if it selected for quality not quantity.
And in ways women don’t know what they want or what would make really happy…
More of what?
They didn’t tell me. Is natural selection a factor ?
And in ways women don’t know what they want or what would make really happy…
More of what?
I don’t think it’s just promiscuity. In my experience women want more, infinitely more, than men do, which is the driving factor behind their unhappiness.
It is hard to believe articles this dumb and ignorant are still being written in 2023. Setting aside the inherited social history of millions of lives across the globe over centuries, contemporary social science also has clearly documented that promiscuity leads to reduced life outcomes for children across a variety of categories – education, wealth, health, crime, etc. No, it’s not the immediate cause-and-effect of the billiard table, it’s the tendency and likelihood of human choice. But there is a clear connection.
There’s always some jackass who says, “Yes but I did it and I’m fine.” What is there to say to the criminal in jail who stands behind his life choices, the drug addict who refuses treatment, the cult follower who commits suicide? People do all sorts of dumb and bad things all the time.
But we should be looking to the wisdom of the centuries and the plain evidence of our own two eyes to determine the social norms and legal expectations we want for our society. Not to the outliers who are, in all likelihood, kidding themselves anyhow.
But the article doesn’t make assumptions on the raising of children, it is to do with the differing sex drives between males and females, and how different cultures deal with them. You’re arguing against a question that hasn’t been asked
Actually it’s about Darwinian evolutionary theory, and if you look at the outcomes for the societies she’s citing they seem not to be very successful, from a survival of the fittest perspective. They continue to exist now only by the grace of the dominant societies which pretty much go the way we did.
The more stable processes backed up by serious competition amongst both males & females for the best genes, and with both sexes but especially female chasing resources and stability, produces better kids, they build and create, that group wins, they repeat.
Actually it’s about Darwinian evolutionary theory, and if you look at the outcomes for the societies she’s citing they seem not to be very successful, from a survival of the fittest perspective. They continue to exist now only by the grace of the dominant societies which pretty much go the way we did.
The more stable processes backed up by serious competition amongst both males & females for the best genes, and with both sexes but especially female chasing resources and stability, produces better kids, they build and create, that group wins, they repeat.
But the article doesn’t make assumptions on the raising of children, it is to do with the differing sex drives between males and females, and how different cultures deal with them. You’re arguing against a question that hasn’t been asked
It is hard to believe articles this dumb and ignorant are still being written in 2023. Setting aside the inherited social history of millions of lives across the globe over centuries, contemporary social science also has clearly documented that promiscuity leads to reduced life outcomes for children across a variety of categories – education, wealth, health, crime, etc. No, it’s not the immediate cause-and-effect of the billiard table, it’s the tendency and likelihood of human choice. But there is a clear connection.
There’s always some jackass who says, “Yes but I did it and I’m fine.” What is there to say to the criminal in jail who stands behind his life choices, the drug addict who refuses treatment, the cult follower who commits suicide? People do all sorts of dumb and bad things all the time.
But we should be looking to the wisdom of the centuries and the plain evidence of our own two eyes to determine the social norms and legal expectations we want for our society. Not to the outliers who are, in all likelihood, kidding themselves anyhow.
Good lord. Right off the bat, the first paragraph is quite silly.
“It presents gender stereotypes as inherent and predetermined, rather than as a production of socialisation”
Gender stereotypes are simply on-average trends of a group that we can observe with our own eyes and ears. We didn’t need Darwinism to see that men are promiscuous. Nor does it mean that every member of that group will or should show the stereotype behaviours.
“The illiberalism of “there are no differences between men and women” is met with the illiberalism of “these differences are insurmountable”.
This feminist biologist is welcome to fight nature all she wants. Nature won’t lose.
Interesting comment. I’m currently reading ‘Why Liberalism Failed’, and the author pretty much says the same thing: that in liberalism’s drive to dislodge us from ‘nature’, it actually sows the seeds of its own destruction i.e. the more we try to subjugate nature the more it reasserts itself in other ways.
Putting aside the idea of whether a stereotype is an average of a group (I’d argue typically not), the premise of this article is not whether observed trends exist, but the extent to which they are evolutionary/ biological in origin. In fact, the author here clearly agrees that there are indeed sex differences.
However, she points out that there is limited formal evidence available from research about the universality of these sex differences around the world and therefore whether such sex differences are due to social and cultural factors or due to biology. There is also little evidence of the extent and degree of these sex differences – ie how much more promiscuous are men than women? How much of that is influenced by the culture and how much holds universal across cultures?
To my mind considering this is the opposite of fighting nature – this is evaluating what ‘nature’ truly is. Surely that is the only way to avoid fighting nature?
Interesting comment. I’m currently reading ‘Why Liberalism Failed’, and the author pretty much says the same thing: that in liberalism’s drive to dislodge us from ‘nature’, it actually sows the seeds of its own destruction i.e. the more we try to subjugate nature the more it reasserts itself in other ways.
Putting aside the idea of whether a stereotype is an average of a group (I’d argue typically not), the premise of this article is not whether observed trends exist, but the extent to which they are evolutionary/ biological in origin. In fact, the author here clearly agrees that there are indeed sex differences.
However, she points out that there is limited formal evidence available from research about the universality of these sex differences around the world and therefore whether such sex differences are due to social and cultural factors or due to biology. There is also little evidence of the extent and degree of these sex differences – ie how much more promiscuous are men than women? How much of that is influenced by the culture and how much holds universal across cultures?
To my mind considering this is the opposite of fighting nature – this is evaluating what ‘nature’ truly is. Surely that is the only way to avoid fighting nature?
Good lord. Right off the bat, the first paragraph is quite silly.
“It presents gender stereotypes as inherent and predetermined, rather than as a production of socialisation”
Gender stereotypes are simply on-average trends of a group that we can observe with our own eyes and ears. We didn’t need Darwinism to see that men are promiscuous. Nor does it mean that every member of that group will or should show the stereotype behaviours.
“The illiberalism of “there are no differences between men and women” is met with the illiberalism of “these differences are insurmountable”.
This feminist biologist is welcome to fight nature all she wants. Nature won’t lose.
I think the writer should return to make an assessment if they are right or wrong once she is at the same stage in life as Louise Perry and Mary Harrington. This feels like an article written by a maiden absorbed by the current technological pharmaceutical paradigm – enjoying extended childhood. Didn’t Louise Perry and Mary Harrington start to think about the problem around and after they became mothers.
For starters the writer is comparing Hunter – gathering societies to post industrial revolution societies and saying these things are the same and equal. Culturally a society were man die often due to hunting and accident the tribe deciding to continue to raise the child strengthens the tribe maintaining genetic diversity etc. In comparison to a society were men and woman life expectancy is now almost equal and parents are able to choose (this is outside the evolutionary norm) how many children they have ( not many recently). They are quite different ways to organise society for the benefit of the individual or the group. I have to agree with another post below who mentioned the technological hole in the argument.
“We should acknowledge that weakening monogamy leaves some women vulnerable, particularly if they cannot replace support from husbands with family or the state”
The word “some” should be replaced by “most”, single mothers are I believe one of the most vunerable group in society and quite often find themselves stuck in poverty with high rates of crime being committed by children of single parents. State support can’t be compared to tribal support to go back to the anthropology its basically extended family within a wider community. The state is faceless and disinterested in everything expect the statistics mentioned above. Not often do new writers at Unherd already have a wikipedia page before their first piece. Working previously as a model with a father who is a head fund manager. The writer appears to be a high socio-economic female, who would then be enable to enjoy that extended childhood. Who is writing about things that which she may never experience and may never have the lived experience of a typical lower socio economic female who may benefit maybe a little from the writings of Mary Harrington and Louise Perry.
Good perspective.
Good perspective.
I think the writer should return to make an assessment if they are right or wrong once she is at the same stage in life as Louise Perry and Mary Harrington. This feels like an article written by a maiden absorbed by the current technological pharmaceutical paradigm – enjoying extended childhood. Didn’t Louise Perry and Mary Harrington start to think about the problem around and after they became mothers.
For starters the writer is comparing Hunter – gathering societies to post industrial revolution societies and saying these things are the same and equal. Culturally a society were man die often due to hunting and accident the tribe deciding to continue to raise the child strengthens the tribe maintaining genetic diversity etc. In comparison to a society were men and woman life expectancy is now almost equal and parents are able to choose (this is outside the evolutionary norm) how many children they have ( not many recently). They are quite different ways to organise society for the benefit of the individual or the group. I have to agree with another post below who mentioned the technological hole in the argument.
“We should acknowledge that weakening monogamy leaves some women vulnerable, particularly if they cannot replace support from husbands with family or the state”
The word “some” should be replaced by “most”, single mothers are I believe one of the most vunerable group in society and quite often find themselves stuck in poverty with high rates of crime being committed by children of single parents. State support can’t be compared to tribal support to go back to the anthropology its basically extended family within a wider community. The state is faceless and disinterested in everything expect the statistics mentioned above. Not often do new writers at Unherd already have a wikipedia page before their first piece. Working previously as a model with a father who is a head fund manager. The writer appears to be a high socio-economic female, who would then be enable to enjoy that extended childhood. Who is writing about things that which she may never experience and may never have the lived experience of a typical lower socio economic female who may benefit maybe a little from the writings of Mary Harrington and Louise Perry.
Are the female Himbas Herbas?
Good one!
Good one!
Are the female Himbas Herbas?
Whether you’re John Doe or Jane Doe, don’t be a hoe.
Why not? As long as you don’t accidentally get pregnant then it’s just a bit of harmless fun
Yeah, until you get an incurable STD.
And create long term damage in your emotional ability to form a stable relationship.
Rubbish! I know it’s only anecdotal but out of my group of friends the ones who split up after having kids were the ones who settled down very young while the rest of us were out enjoying ourselves.
I think messing around a bit while you’re young gives you a bit of experience of what relationships actually involve. We all change as we age, those that settle down at 20 often don’t like what their life has become in their 30’s in my opinion
I agree with you as long as you are careful about nasty diseases and unwanted pregnancy which is much less difficult than is often claimed. However, I think being faithful to a marriage is important; betraying a partner can cause terrible misery
I’m not arguing for going behind your partners back, personally I think that’s horrible selfish behaviour. My point generally is that if you’re young free and single then fill your boots. At some point you’ll get tied down, and if you haven’t got it all out of your system when you’re young it often happens later on in a mid life crisis. At least that’s how it played out amongst my mates anyway
I think your point is reasonable
I would prefer the virgin I got in marriage not one who has slept around, but I could forgive one who came to terms with it being wrong. If not I wouldn’t feel safe with her.
Yea, I’m not so sure these guys, who proclaim they are proud to marry a former promiscuous woman, are fully comfortable knowing that there are dozens and dozens of former lovers lurking around nearby or online.
You must be a pretty useless husband if you believe she’d go running off to an ex at every opportunity
OMG!!!
You must be a pretty useless husband if you believe she’d go running off to an ex at every opportunity
OMG!!!
The idea of marrying a virgin baffles me, except that some weird, insecure blokes view it as a status symbol. I’d much rather marry a bird who knows what she’s doing
Agreed, a woman that has experienced life and is confident.
Reminds me of the old Billy Connolly sketch, saying how suicide bombers being rewarded by 50 virgins would be a nightmare. He’d rather have two fire breathing whores any day of the week!
OMG!!
Reminds me of the old Billy Connolly sketch, saying how suicide bombers being rewarded by 50 virgins would be a nightmare. He’d rather have two fire breathing whores any day of the week!
OMG!!
OMG!!
Agreed, a woman that has experienced life and is confident.
OMG!!
OMG!!!
Yea, I’m not so sure these guys, who proclaim they are proud to marry a former promiscuous woman, are fully comfortable knowing that there are dozens and dozens of former lovers lurking around nearby or online.
The idea of marrying a virgin baffles me, except that some weird, insecure blokes view it as a status symbol. I’d much rather marry a bird who knows what she’s doing
OMG!!!
..until they get a STD !!
OMG!!
OMG!!
I think your point is reasonable
I would prefer the virgin I got in marriage not one who has slept around, but I could forgive one who came to terms with it being wrong. If not I wouldn’t feel safe with her.
..until they get a STD !!
I’m not arguing for going behind your partners back, personally I think that’s horrible selfish behaviour. My point generally is that if you’re young free and single then fill your boots. At some point you’ll get tied down, and if you haven’t got it all out of your system when you’re young it often happens later on in a mid life crisis. At least that’s how it played out amongst my mates anyway
Absolutely. Not to mention that our brains don’t finish developing untill we’re, what 25?
I agree with you as long as you are careful about nasty diseases and unwanted pregnancy which is much less difficult than is often claimed. However, I think being faithful to a marriage is important; betraying a partner can cause terrible misery
Absolutely. Not to mention that our brains don’t finish developing untill we’re, what 25?
Rubbish! I know it’s only anecdotal but out of my group of friends the ones who split up after having kids were the ones who settled down very young while the rest of us were out enjoying ourselves.
I think messing around a bit while you’re young gives you a bit of experience of what relationships actually involve. We all change as we age, those that settle down at 20 often don’t like what their life has become in their 30’s in my opinion
You can catch one of them even if you only sleep with a single person. I’m guessing you didn’t send your missus to the clinic to ensure she had the all clear before you first got your leg over?
I (now aged 39) have literally never slept with someone without a condom (which are so close to 100% effective as birth control when used correctly as makes no difference) without us both getting tested first. Total partners up to age 28 something like 10. Just the one since then and a marriage and two delightful children to boot. Would highly recommend this formula for a mixture of fun and being fulfilled in life but each to their own – just don’t forget the Durex! (In fact my wife and I still use them as this seems far more sensible than pumping one’s body full of synthetic hormones that accumulate in the water supply as a means of birth control and we like the sex but want definitely no more babies ta). Should probably stop bragging now as pride before a fall etc!
Hate to break it to you, but condoms are probably only about 90% effective against pregnancy… Definitely worth it to reduce the chance, but other contraceptive methods (used correctly) are significantly more effective. I say this as a medical professional very very pro use of condoms to prevent STI transmission, but for anyone having regular sex and wanting to avoid pregnancy in the absolute, something more is definitely advisable.
Like a vascectomy.
Castration, just to make sure.
Castration, just to make sure.
Like a vascectomy.
That’s way more than we needed to know.
Fair. Sorry.
Fair. Sorry.
Hate to break it to you, but condoms are probably only about 90% effective against pregnancy… Definitely worth it to reduce the chance, but other contraceptive methods (used correctly) are significantly more effective. I say this as a medical professional very very pro use of condoms to prevent STI transmission, but for anyone having regular sex and wanting to avoid pregnancy in the absolute, something more is definitely advisable.
That’s way more than we needed to know.
OMG!!
I (now aged 39) have literally never slept with someone without a condom (which are so close to 100% effective as birth control when used correctly as makes no difference) without us both getting tested first. Total partners up to age 28 something like 10. Just the one since then and a marriage and two delightful children to boot. Would highly recommend this formula for a mixture of fun and being fulfilled in life but each to their own – just don’t forget the Durex! (In fact my wife and I still use them as this seems far more sensible than pumping one’s body full of synthetic hormones that accumulate in the water supply as a means of birth control and we like the sex but want definitely no more babies ta). Should probably stop bragging now as pride before a fall etc!
OMG!!
There’s not too many that are incurable though, you’d have to be pretty unlucky
It’s not the percentage that is important, it’s the prevalence. Thirty-nine percent of African-Americans have genital herpes.
You didn’t have to say that which I doubt is true. It’s obviously a rascist remark. Nasty. Says more about you than them.
You didn’t have to say that which I doubt is true. It’s obviously a rascist remark. Nasty. Says more about you than them.
Well… prevention far better than cure – may be that most are ‘curable’ or at least treatable, but need to remember that there can still be irreversible consequences. For example, chlamydia is curable but is often asymptomatic. If not treated it can result in severe pelvic infection and damage resulting in infertility. Syphilis is also on the rise again, and while easily treated if known about, can cause severe irreversible disability.
Fully pro personal choice here, but remember there are risks, use protection and get tested regularly!
What the hell has all this machismo got to do with the article.
What the hell has all this machismo got to do with the article.
It’s not the percentage that is important, it’s the prevalence. Thirty-nine percent of African-Americans have genital herpes.
Well… prevention far better than cure – may be that most are ‘curable’ or at least treatable, but need to remember that there can still be irreversible consequences. For example, chlamydia is curable but is often asymptomatic. If not treated it can result in severe pelvic infection and damage resulting in infertility. Syphilis is also on the rise again, and while easily treated if known about, can cause severe irreversible disability.
Fully pro personal choice here, but remember there are risks, use protection and get tested regularly!
There are a number of ways of avoiding such an eventuality, Monsignor.
And create long term damage in your emotional ability to form a stable relationship.
You can catch one of them even if you only sleep with a single person. I’m guessing you didn’t send your missus to the clinic to ensure she had the all clear before you first got your leg over?
There’s not too many that are incurable though, you’d have to be pretty unlucky
There are a number of ways of avoiding such an eventuality, Monsignor.
Yeah, until you get an incurable STD.
Why not? As long as you don’t accidentally get pregnant then it’s just a bit of harmless fun
Whether you’re John Doe or Jane Doe, don’t be a hoe.
The thing is that statistically men who want to marry, prefer a young attractive woman who has a low body count (aka has not slept with a lot of guys). For women from age 19 to about 26 they are at their peak desirability. Then once they get into their 30s things go downhill fast.
All the attention they got from the guys that just want to bed them starts to dry up, and also higher quality men who would want to marry them and settle down also prefer a younger woman because her childbearing years are much greater than a 30 something year old.
So, the whole promiscuous lifestyle in the early 20s really costs women a lot. Sadly many only figure out much latter just how much. Many wind up either frustrated and single, or with much lower quality men than they would have liked.
In other words they give their best years to dating men then want to give the fag ends to a prospective marriage partner. I married late but married a virgin. It is still precious.
OMG. The misogynists are coming out of the closet! Women where are you!
I just doubt there is much of a point in bothering to argue with them. They very clearly need their self-soothing little stories of the lasting value of men at any age, versus fleeting window for women who better get with the program, or they wouldn’t feel the need to keep yammering on about it, and nothing said in opposition has much of a chance of being truly listened to, for that reason.
So true, Mustard (Mustard?).
It’s just a kind of silly pen name, I guess. Used it on Reddit and then just kind of kept using it elsewhere – because why not, but also because I tend to like to tell little stories and observations about people I know, and if I am anonymous then so are they.
mustardclementine.substack.com
It’s just a kind of silly pen name, I guess. Used it on Reddit and then just kind of kept using it elsewhere – because why not, but also because I tend to like to tell little stories and observations about people I know, and if I am anonymous then so are they.
mustardclementine.substack.com
So true, Mustard (Mustard?).
Here. I read the Female Eunuch when it first came out.
Couldn’t understand what the hell the woman wanted. Seemed to me I was doing fine – grant money for research etc. long before the days of affirmative action.
Mostly male colleagues. Married one before either of our brains were fully developed. 52 years ago. It’s still great. I must be really thick skinned because misogyny just never seemed an issue.
I’d say you really, really lucked out. I think Germaine Greer is a bit of an exception. I also read The Female Eunuch but don’t really remember what it was all about. However, I do remember reading some of Greer’s autobiographical stuff and remember that she never forgave her mother. That seemed rather harsh. One must consider the personality of the person who is saying what, and Greer is an alph female.
I’d say you really, really lucked out. I think Germaine Greer is a bit of an exception. I also read The Female Eunuch but don’t really remember what it was all about. However, I do remember reading some of Greer’s autobiographical stuff and remember that she never forgave her mother. That seemed rather harsh. One must consider the personality of the person who is saying what, and Greer is an alph female.
I just doubt there is much of a point in bothering to argue with them. They very clearly need their self-soothing little stories of the lasting value of men at any age, versus fleeting window for women who better get with the program, or they wouldn’t feel the need to keep yammering on about it, and nothing said in opposition has much of a chance of being truly listened to, for that reason.
Here. I read the Female Eunuch when it first came out.
Couldn’t understand what the hell the woman wanted. Seemed to me I was doing fine – grant money for research etc. long before the days of affirmative action.
Mostly male colleagues. Married one before either of our brains were fully developed. 52 years ago. It’s still great. I must be really thick skinned because misogyny just never seemed an issue.
Why are you so fixated on your wife’s virginity, were you afraid you wouldn’t stack up to her previous conquests?
Also were you a virgin? Your abuse aside had you freely slept with anybody else before your wife, or did you only expect that behaviour of her?
Well said.
Well said.
OMG. The misogynists are coming out of the closet! Women where are you!
Why are you so fixated on your wife’s virginity, were you afraid you wouldn’t stack up to her previous conquests?
Also were you a virgin? Your abuse aside had you freely slept with anybody else before your wife, or did you only expect that behaviour of her?
Au contraire old man, I had no difficulty finding attractive lovers up until menopause when I was no longer hormone driven, thank you nature. In fact I had a beautiful live-in lover when I was 32 who was 10 years younger than me.
Nothing wrong with a toyboy!
You betcha!
You betcha!
Nothing wrong with a toyboy!
In other words they give their best years to dating men then want to give the fag ends to a prospective marriage partner. I married late but married a virgin. It is still precious.
Au contraire old man, I had no difficulty finding attractive lovers up until menopause when I was no longer hormone driven, thank you nature. In fact I had a beautiful live-in lover when I was 32 who was 10 years younger than me.
The thing is that statistically men who want to marry, prefer a young attractive woman who has a low body count (aka has not slept with a lot of guys). For women from age 19 to about 26 they are at their peak desirability. Then once they get into their 30s things go downhill fast.
All the attention they got from the guys that just want to bed them starts to dry up, and also higher quality men who would want to marry them and settle down also prefer a younger woman because her childbearing years are much greater than a 30 something year old.
So, the whole promiscuous lifestyle in the early 20s really costs women a lot. Sadly many only figure out much latter just how much. Many wind up either frustrated and single, or with much lower quality men than they would have liked.
Surely it is not ignorance of the Himba, whoever they are, that is thwarting women’s promiscuity; nor is it conservatives, as the author might wish to believe. After all, women pick their own “sexual strategies”, dismaying as this may be to some since for many women this will be: abstinence, marriage, family, faith in God. . .
Meanwhile other women are free to participate in the marketplace with dating apps. Once there, it is clear that the only thing preventing them from being as promiscuous as they wish, is the lack of a suitable lover–by no one’s standards but their own, for which I certainly don’t blame them. (Or is it supposed that women compete for the same limited pool of desirable men–who, like some African polygamist to borrow the author’s analogy, have several mates at a time (only without having to provide for them)–all because they have been conditioned by evolutionary biology, which must only be undone, presumably by a diet of anthropological and feminist literature?)
Surely it is not ignorance of the Himba, whoever they are, that is thwarting women’s promiscuity; nor is it conservatives, as the author might wish to believe. After all, women pick their own “sexual strategies”, dismaying as this may be to some since for many women this will be: abstinence, marriage, family, faith in God. . .
Meanwhile other women are free to participate in the marketplace with dating apps. Once there, it is clear that the only thing preventing them from being as promiscuous as they wish, is the lack of a suitable lover–by no one’s standards but their own, for which I certainly don’t blame them. (Or is it supposed that women compete for the same limited pool of desirable men–who, like some African polygamist to borrow the author’s analogy, have several mates at a time (only without having to provide for them)–all because they have been conditioned by evolutionary biology, which must only be undone, presumably by a diet of anthropological and feminist literature?)
The likely difference between Olympia and Louise/Mary is that the latter are mothers, who naturally place their children’s best interests ahead of their own. Single men and women place their sexual gratification above all else. Allow men that sexual freedom and they will inseminate as many women as they can. Louise and Mary are correct in that women and mothers end up losers in that arrangement. Many end up dependent on the State instead of a husband. The fact is children and most mothers need support. Marriage isn’t perfect, and it takes work to maintain, but the rewards of an intact nuclear family and well adjusted kids far exceed Olympia’s imagination.
The likely difference between Olympia and Louise/Mary is that the latter are mothers, who naturally place their children’s best interests ahead of their own. Single men and women place their sexual gratification above all else. Allow men that sexual freedom and they will inseminate as many women as they can. Louise and Mary are correct in that women and mothers end up losers in that arrangement. Many end up dependent on the State instead of a husband. The fact is children and most mothers need support. Marriage isn’t perfect, and it takes work to maintain, but the rewards of an intact nuclear family and well adjusted kids far exceed Olympia’s imagination.
Neither the idea that there is a theoretical perfection around relationships, nor that some women are as promiscuous as men, therefore all women are promiscuous hold logical water. Societies evolve rules they are comfortable with that tend to condition relationships to reduce harms – harms to the children, to women, to rival suitors, to families and legitimacy/inheritance, and to social stability. Not every problem can be solved, so individual societies pick a path that mostly works across time.
In general, most people (men and women) are not promiscuous. Relationships are more important than sex. ‘Straying’ is a potentially very expensive, and undesirable, option and so rare for this group. Long-term serial relationships are the norm here.
Then there is also a small group of very promiscuous women and men. This is a much much smaller population. However, this group is potentially disruptive – seducers, affairs, prostitutes, marriage breakers, absent fathers, one-night-standers. They would like laissez faire, and for more people to be promiscuous. Society has to create norms to keep this group in-line for the stability of the non-promiscuous majority. Hence rules about sex and marriage. Criminalisation of adultery. Inheritance laws. Parental duties. Controls on prostitution. Dress codes. Laws on pornography. Standards of behaviour.
Each generation revisits the trade-offs between the promiscuous and the non-promiscuous. Things like ‘me-too’, issues of consent, the sex industry, how children learn about sex, the permissibility of sex before marriage. How the lines get drawn evolves over time. There is no theoretical right answer, just a balance of pros and cons that needs to be openly discussed for a compromise that is applied at a point in time.
I suspect most men would be promiscuois if they could get away with it because nature has made them to be easily aroused. They can’t help it. Most gay men are promiscuois because they don’t have to be concerned about pregnancy and commitment etc.
I suspect most men would be promiscuois if they could get away with it because nature has made them to be easily aroused. They can’t help it. Most gay men are promiscuois because they don’t have to be concerned about pregnancy and commitment etc.
Neither the idea that there is a theoretical perfection around relationships, nor that some women are as promiscuous as men, therefore all women are promiscuous hold logical water. Societies evolve rules they are comfortable with that tend to condition relationships to reduce harms – harms to the children, to women, to rival suitors, to families and legitimacy/inheritance, and to social stability. Not every problem can be solved, so individual societies pick a path that mostly works across time.
In general, most people (men and women) are not promiscuous. Relationships are more important than sex. ‘Straying’ is a potentially very expensive, and undesirable, option and so rare for this group. Long-term serial relationships are the norm here.
Then there is also a small group of very promiscuous women and men. This is a much much smaller population. However, this group is potentially disruptive – seducers, affairs, prostitutes, marriage breakers, absent fathers, one-night-standers. They would like laissez faire, and for more people to be promiscuous. Society has to create norms to keep this group in-line for the stability of the non-promiscuous majority. Hence rules about sex and marriage. Criminalisation of adultery. Inheritance laws. Parental duties. Controls on prostitution. Dress codes. Laws on pornography. Standards of behaviour.
Each generation revisits the trade-offs between the promiscuous and the non-promiscuous. Things like ‘me-too’, issues of consent, the sex industry, how children learn about sex, the permissibility of sex before marriage. How the lines get drawn evolves over time. There is no theoretical right answer, just a balance of pros and cons that needs to be openly discussed for a compromise that is applied at a point in time.
Let’s focus more on children here, for heaven’s sake, instead of this feminist me-me-me stuff.
Marriage – whether secular or religious – exists primarily because of
the transience of infatuation. You know how you can be mad into
someone at the start, 24×7 shagathons etc. Pure hormones, we’re
designed that way, but that never lasts more than say 6 months to a
couple of years, max.
When you’re in the hormone-rush stage, marriage is superfluous, as
your hormones are impelling you towards exclusivity with the person
you’re obsessed with banging.
Any fool can be “committed” to someone they’re physically and
emotionally obsessed with, during the infatuation phase. But that’s
not commitment, and there is no point to marriage in that scenario.
Marriage doesnt add anything, as you’re already super-obsessed,
without having to try. But people like e.g., Adele see marriage as just a
big day out, a public celebration of their current infatuation, some
photos in Hello magazine etc, but certainly nothing more than that.
Adele’s vows, if she made any, are entirely hollow.
People like Adele are observers at their own life. Their “commitment”
is always entirely conditional on what they may or may not feel, next
week, or tomorrow. As soon as they feel a pang of lust for another
person, that’s it, they’re off again. Only encroaching middle age and
decreasing physical attractiveness slows them down, but then they
always feel trapped and miserable. Essentially they want to stay 24
forever, and have endless short-term flings, with suer-duper
knee-trembler orgasms on tap.
Which is arrested-development idiocy, but hey knock yourself out if
you want to live like you’re immortal, when in reality all our lives
are fleeting.
But this whole edifice of navel-gazing nonsense is incompatible with
assuming responsibility for the growth and development of new human
beings, which is a major part of any marriage.
Don’t start that if you’re going to bail on it, like a weakling.
You make a choice – am I ruled by my genitals, or not? And people
like Adele are, essentially, ruled by their genitals. Their life is a
permanent quest for the perfect orgasm. If you ever read Cosmo
magazine, you can glean the mindset – about 50% of Cosmopolitan’s
magazine’ articles are about finding the perfect orgasm. This
arrested-development twaddle is presented as being “liberated”.
Marriage is a wise and pragmatic recognition of the biological fact
that physical infatuations wane (or we’d get no work done) and settle
down.
If you make the mistake of thinking that you should always follow your
“feelings”, then, logically, you’d be looking to re-marry about once a
year, for most of us.
Marriage is about prioritising other people, it’s about service,
that’s the nature of love. Someone takes a chance on you, stick with
them. Respect them. Care for them. Man up, woman up, and stop
acting like a teenager.
Oh, and most kids who are brutalised / abused / murdered in their
homes are the victims of a step mum or stepdad.
Every flipping time. Por child abused and murdered in appalling
circumstances. Always, always, it’s a stepdad or step mum.
But hey, that’s all right because the parent who initiated the divorce
is once again having amazing knee-tremblers.
Let’s focus more on children here, for heaven’s sake, instead of this feminist me-me-me stuff.
Marriage – whether secular or religious – exists primarily because of
the transience of infatuation. You know how you can be mad into
someone at the start, 24×7 shagathons etc. Pure hormones, we’re
designed that way, but that never lasts more than say 6 months to a
couple of years, max.
When you’re in the hormone-rush stage, marriage is superfluous, as
your hormones are impelling you towards exclusivity with the person
you’re obsessed with banging.
Any fool can be “committed” to someone they’re physically and
emotionally obsessed with, during the infatuation phase. But that’s
not commitment, and there is no point to marriage in that scenario.
Marriage doesnt add anything, as you’re already super-obsessed,
without having to try. But people like e.g., Adele see marriage as just a
big day out, a public celebration of their current infatuation, some
photos in Hello magazine etc, but certainly nothing more than that.
Adele’s vows, if she made any, are entirely hollow.
People like Adele are observers at their own life. Their “commitment”
is always entirely conditional on what they may or may not feel, next
week, or tomorrow. As soon as they feel a pang of lust for another
person, that’s it, they’re off again. Only encroaching middle age and
decreasing physical attractiveness slows them down, but then they
always feel trapped and miserable. Essentially they want to stay 24
forever, and have endless short-term flings, with suer-duper
knee-trembler orgasms on tap.
Which is arrested-development idiocy, but hey knock yourself out if
you want to live like you’re immortal, when in reality all our lives
are fleeting.
But this whole edifice of navel-gazing nonsense is incompatible with
assuming responsibility for the growth and development of new human
beings, which is a major part of any marriage.
Don’t start that if you’re going to bail on it, like a weakling.
You make a choice – am I ruled by my genitals, or not? And people
like Adele are, essentially, ruled by their genitals. Their life is a
permanent quest for the perfect orgasm. If you ever read Cosmo
magazine, you can glean the mindset – about 50% of Cosmopolitan’s
magazine’ articles are about finding the perfect orgasm. This
arrested-development twaddle is presented as being “liberated”.
Marriage is a wise and pragmatic recognition of the biological fact
that physical infatuations wane (or we’d get no work done) and settle
down.
If you make the mistake of thinking that you should always follow your
“feelings”, then, logically, you’d be looking to re-marry about once a
year, for most of us.
Marriage is about prioritising other people, it’s about service,
that’s the nature of love. Someone takes a chance on you, stick with
them. Respect them. Care for them. Man up, woman up, and stop
acting like a teenager.
Oh, and most kids who are brutalised / abused / murdered in their
homes are the victims of a step mum or stepdad.
Every flipping time. Por child abused and murdered in appalling
circumstances. Always, always, it’s a stepdad or step mum.
But hey, that’s all right because the parent who initiated the divorce
is once again having amazing knee-tremblers.
I was, initially, quite open to her ideas. I’m not convinced by Perry and Harrington, mostly on the grounds that people must work out how to live their lives for themselves. My thought is, if a single woman, wants casual affairs and is careful to avoid diseases and pregnancy fine. Open relationships, too, can work.
I do think, however, that once there are children the picture changes. The duty of both parents is to provide a stable and happy home. She is rather too dismissive of the feeling of cuckholded fathers and men who find they are raising another man’s child or men who do their best for their family only to betrayed. Obviously this affects women too.
To offer alternatives to those ideas of Harrington and Perry is good but when she writes about freewheeling parenting, I think she missteps. This has led to a great of misery in the west for men, women and children. Of course, unusual relationships can work but those have created as successful a model for parenting as the nuclear family.
What she could have written about was how individuals and couples with children might better improve their own sex lives. But, fair play, that’s rather mire difficult than producing a few examples of how other cultures figure these issues.
Yes, one sentence seems questionable to me: “Natural selection doesn’t care much for your long-term happiness and doesn’t provide us with the means to build a moral and sexual ethics.”
Isn’t NS about outcomes in the long term ? Somethings work sometimes in some places for some time, but not necessarily.
NS may mean to build ethics through long term outcomes. Darwin Awards for groups.
What if you start from the child’s point of view ? They are the start of the future. NS ‘cares about’ the future.
Natural selection does not care about the future, it is influenced only by past successes. If a trait increased chance of reproduction it is more likely to persist where traits reducing reproduction are less likely. Neutral traits will drift for other reasons.
Happiness and ethics are only relevant in NS to the extent they impact reproduction. There is no intended direction.
Exactly.
Exactly.
I don’t think NS cares if we’re happy. Women and children get impregnated through rape and the religious don’t want them to abort.Nature doesn’t want them to either. Neither cares about the happiness of the female or the child.
Natural selection does not care about the future, it is influenced only by past successes. If a trait increased chance of reproduction it is more likely to persist where traits reducing reproduction are less likely. Neutral traits will drift for other reasons.
Happiness and ethics are only relevant in NS to the extent they impact reproduction. There is no intended direction.
I don’t think NS cares if we’re happy. Women and children get impregnated through rape and the religious don’t want them to abort.Nature doesn’t want them to either. Neither cares about the happiness of the female or the child.
Yes, one sentence seems questionable to me: “Natural selection doesn’t care much for your long-term happiness and doesn’t provide us with the means to build a moral and sexual ethics.”
Isn’t NS about outcomes in the long term ? Somethings work sometimes in some places for some time, but not necessarily.
NS may mean to build ethics through long term outcomes. Darwin Awards for groups.
What if you start from the child’s point of view ? They are the start of the future. NS ‘cares about’ the future.
I was, initially, quite open to her ideas. I’m not convinced by Perry and Harrington, mostly on the grounds that people must work out how to live their lives for themselves. My thought is, if a single woman, wants casual affairs and is careful to avoid diseases and pregnancy fine. Open relationships, too, can work.
I do think, however, that once there are children the picture changes. The duty of both parents is to provide a stable and happy home. She is rather too dismissive of the feeling of cuckholded fathers and men who find they are raising another man’s child or men who do their best for their family only to betrayed. Obviously this affects women too.
To offer alternatives to those ideas of Harrington and Perry is good but when she writes about freewheeling parenting, I think she missteps. This has led to a great of misery in the west for men, women and children. Of course, unusual relationships can work but those have created as successful a model for parenting as the nuclear family.
What she could have written about was how individuals and couples with children might better improve their own sex lives. But, fair play, that’s rather mire difficult than producing a few examples of how other cultures figure these issues.
Interesting examples but if you want to compare levels of male and female promiscuity surely just look at the ratio of men to women on dating sites, in particular, those of a more “causal” nature. My understanding it’s around ten men for every one woman.
And the difference on said sites for swiping right. 6% for women v 90% for men.
I read recently that when women were less financially independant and therefore more dependant on men for support,they didn’t much care what the man looked like. However, now that financial support is less important women have gotten more picky. Consequentially average, and less than average, white men are finding it harder to get a woman. Hence, they’re bitching about how endangered they are and trurning to Andrew Tate for advice.
I read recently that when women were less financially independant and therefore more dependant on men for support,they didn’t much care what the man looked like. However, now that financial support is less important women have gotten more picky. Consequentially average, and less than average, white men are finding it harder to get a woman. Hence, they’re bitching about how endangered they are and trurning to Andrew Tate for advice.
They must be very frustrated men. Searching for a good marriage is still the way to go.
And good luck with that!
And good luck with that!
And the difference on said sites for swiping right. 6% for women v 90% for men.
They must be very frustrated men. Searching for a good marriage is still the way to go.
Interesting examples but if you want to compare levels of male and female promiscuity surely just look at the ratio of men to women on dating sites, in particular, those of a more “causal” nature. My understanding it’s around ten men for every one woman.
There’s always a tribe, somewhere in the world, the less-known the better, that “proves” every wishful theory.
There’s always a tribe, somewhere in the world, the less-known the better, that “proves” every wishful theory.
“Once upon a time, Darwinian theory was regarded as anathema to feminism. It presents gender stereotypes as inherent and predetermined, rather than as a production of socialisation and implies that women should fulfil “traditional roles”.”
I don’t pretend to be an expert but I find the way evolution is used in such debates confusing.
Firstly, surely the most important aspect of any evolutionary theory is that it is a process, not an event. Things keep evolving in response to their environment, or at least retain the potential to evolve even if they have reached a point of equilibrium where they evolve so slowly that they appear not to be (e.g. some species of sharks).
Therefore, any argument which suggests that because something is an evolved characteristic it means it is somehow immutable strikes me as being contradictory. What is evolution if not the changing of characteristics in response to environment?
Going back to the passage I quoted, does this not then mean that both these things can be true, at least to some extent? That in many places traditional male and female roles evolved because they conferred an evolutionary advantage within the prevailing environment. But that those roles can and do evolve further in response to changes in that environment, some of which changes will indeed be the processes of socialisation which one side relies on almost exclusively as the explanation for those roles?
Perhaps she takes evolution as if true. I know many who very much doubt that.
Perhaps she takes evolution as if true. I know many who very much doubt that.
“Once upon a time, Darwinian theory was regarded as anathema to feminism. It presents gender stereotypes as inherent and predetermined, rather than as a production of socialisation and implies that women should fulfil “traditional roles”.”
I don’t pretend to be an expert but I find the way evolution is used in such debates confusing.
Firstly, surely the most important aspect of any evolutionary theory is that it is a process, not an event. Things keep evolving in response to their environment, or at least retain the potential to evolve even if they have reached a point of equilibrium where they evolve so slowly that they appear not to be (e.g. some species of sharks).
Therefore, any argument which suggests that because something is an evolved characteristic it means it is somehow immutable strikes me as being contradictory. What is evolution if not the changing of characteristics in response to environment?
Going back to the passage I quoted, does this not then mean that both these things can be true, at least to some extent? That in many places traditional male and female roles evolved because they conferred an evolutionary advantage within the prevailing environment. But that those roles can and do evolve further in response to changes in that environment, some of which changes will indeed be the processes of socialisation which one side relies on almost exclusively as the explanation for those roles?
Interesting article, but, despite things I disagree with them about, the analysis of LP, and especially MH, rings truer. As it is, there is a big technology shaped hole in the author’s analysis here.
Interesting article, but, despite things I disagree with them about, the analysis of LP, and especially MH, rings truer. As it is, there is a big technology shaped hole in the author’s analysis here.
I have 4 daughters aged between 14 and 21 and Louise Perry and Mary Harrington’s work is relevant, brave and refreshing against all the liberal mainstream feminist bullshit being presently thrown at young teenagers and women. Artists like Cardi B’s WAP song being hailed as ´empowering’ on some teenage blogs is a real worry. There are many young women who suffer from hook-up culture and feel exposed, cheated and undervalued because they simply cannot just walk away after having a sexual experience like some men. Fictional heroes like Carrie from Sex and the City are sad figures for women to aspire to and do not help build strong relationships between men and women. Wether or not our sexuality is biologically determined, the current state of the ‘sexual revolution’ where hook-up culture and casual sex is seen as normal has placed young women in a very difficult minefield to navigate.
“…they simply cannot just walk away after having a sexual experience like some men.”
I’m glad you said ‘some’ men. It’s a myth that men are into hook-up culture. Sure, some are. But, the majority are not, I believe, and they end up feeling as ‘exposed, cheated and undervalued’ as the young women.
I had a number of casual sexual encounters as a young man, and even in middle-age am still fit and attractive, and get plenty of attention and offers from women who are less than half my age of 57. What I have learned about myself is that really great sex, at least for me, requires a degree of trust, intimacy (physical, emotional and intellectual) and familiarity that is impossible to achieve unless you and your partner get to know each other, and that’s impossible in a “hook-up” situation.
Speak for yourself. I’m too old, ugly and lazy now but I certainly didn’t feel cheated and undervalued whenever I got lucky in my younger days. Quite the opposite in fact, I was strutting like Mick Jagger the morning after
I had a number of casual sexual encounters as a young man, and even in middle-age am still fit and attractive, and get plenty of attention and offers from women who are less than half my age of 57. What I have learned about myself is that really great sex, at least for me, requires a degree of trust, intimacy (physical, emotional and intellectual) and familiarity that is impossible to achieve unless you and your partner get to know each other, and that’s impossible in a “hook-up” situation.
Speak for yourself. I’m too old, ugly and lazy now but I certainly didn’t feel cheated and undervalued whenever I got lucky in my younger days. Quite the opposite in fact, I was strutting like Mick Jagger the morning after
“…they simply cannot just walk away after having a sexual experience like some men.”
I’m glad you said ‘some’ men. It’s a myth that men are into hook-up culture. Sure, some are. But, the majority are not, I believe, and they end up feeling as ‘exposed, cheated and undervalued’ as the young women.
I have 4 daughters aged between 14 and 21 and Louise Perry and Mary Harrington’s work is relevant, brave and refreshing against all the liberal mainstream feminist bullshit being presently thrown at young teenagers and women. Artists like Cardi B’s WAP song being hailed as ´empowering’ on some teenage blogs is a real worry. There are many young women who suffer from hook-up culture and feel exposed, cheated and undervalued because they simply cannot just walk away after having a sexual experience like some men. Fictional heroes like Carrie from Sex and the City are sad figures for women to aspire to and do not help build strong relationships between men and women. Wether or not our sexuality is biologically determined, the current state of the ‘sexual revolution’ where hook-up culture and casual sex is seen as normal has placed young women in a very difficult minefield to navigate.
Oh well done, Olympia! You managed to work in a dig at President Trump. Your future in academia and the media is assured.
Oh well done, Olympia! You managed to work in a dig at President Trump. Your future in academia and the media is assured.
“Consider the following statement: “I don’t like it when her boyfriend is here in the morning when I come back from being away.” This line might seem plucked from a conversation about sexual jealousy in a polyamorous chatroom, but in fact it comes from a Himba man”
I initially assumed it was about females house-sharing, or in some sort of dormitory. That has cheered me up in a small inexplicable manner.
Exactly! It’s sounds very out of place. But apparently the writer used to be a model and her father is some hedge-fund thingy. Class perspectives will shine through.
Exactly! It’s sounds very out of place. But apparently the writer used to be a model and her father is some hedge-fund thingy. Class perspectives will shine through.
“Consider the following statement: “I don’t like it when her boyfriend is here in the morning when I come back from being away.” This line might seem plucked from a conversation about sexual jealousy in a polyamorous chatroom, but in fact it comes from a Himba man”
I initially assumed it was about females house-sharing, or in some sort of dormitory. That has cheered me up in a small inexplicable manner.
I’m not sure that relying on the evidence of a small number of particularly unsuccessful societies is any less of a superficially convincing narrative against gender stereotypes. The fact that these societies have been so unsuccessful appears to be an argument against relying on them as data for the rest of the world’s current circumstances.
“But can any of this tell us how to live?” This is where Mary Harrington’s advice is pertinent. I understand Mary Harrington believes that the sexual liberation of women over the last 60 years or so, together with the false claims that women and men are the same but for social constructs, has not made women happier over the long term and has not made for a happier and healthier society. I understand she bases these beliefs on the rise in unhappy, unmarried, childless and often professional women who have left it too late to marry and have children, together with data showing the poor outcomes for children from single parent, particularly single-mother, families. So yes, I think Harrington does make a strong argument as to how to live.
I’m not sure that relying on the evidence of a small number of particularly unsuccessful societies is any less of a superficially convincing narrative against gender stereotypes. The fact that these societies have been so unsuccessful appears to be an argument against relying on them as data for the rest of the world’s current circumstances.
“But can any of this tell us how to live?” This is where Mary Harrington’s advice is pertinent. I understand Mary Harrington believes that the sexual liberation of women over the last 60 years or so, together with the false claims that women and men are the same but for social constructs, has not made women happier over the long term and has not made for a happier and healthier society. I understand she bases these beliefs on the rise in unhappy, unmarried, childless and often professional women who have left it too late to marry and have children, together with data showing the poor outcomes for children from single parent, particularly single-mother, families. So yes, I think Harrington does make a strong argument as to how to live.
Marriage and two-parent families where the man is the primary earner are the high-percentage characteristics of the wealthiest people in the US.
But as Charles Murray pointed out in “Coming Apart” we live in a time when the wealthy and elite do not preach what they practice. They do the opposite, which serves their interests.
And they support an educational establishment that churns out scholars who justify and validate paying no attention whatsoever to what works for the wealthy.
Marriage and two-parent families where the man is the primary earner are the high-percentage characteristics of the wealthiest people in the US.
But as Charles Murray pointed out in “Coming Apart” we live in a time when the wealthy and elite do not preach what they practice. They do the opposite, which serves their interests.
And they support an educational establishment that churns out scholars who justify and validate paying no attention whatsoever to what works for the wealthy.
Unherd publishing a criticism of one of their main contributors is good journalism, and its why I am a subscriber.
Unherd publishing a criticism of one of their main contributors is good journalism, and its why I am a subscriber.
Why are all the replies to this by men, out of interest?
All the women are out being promiscuous 😉
Out where?
Asking for a friend.
Oh to be ten years younger. And not be with the missus, as I imagine she’d kick up a stink
There was I, waiting at the church,
Waiting at the church,
Waiting at the church;
When I found he’d left me in the lurch,
Lor, how it did upset me!
All at once, he sent me round a note
Here’s the very note,
This is what he wrote:
“Can’t get away to marry you today,
My wife, won’t let me!”
And rightly so.
There was I, waiting at the church,
Waiting at the church,
Waiting at the church;
When I found he’d left me in the lurch,
Lor, how it did upset me!
All at once, he sent me round a note
Here’s the very note,
This is what he wrote:
“Can’t get away to marry you today,
My wife, won’t let me!”
And rightly so.
The cynical answer is, out with the 3% of men that the 93% of women will select, when they want to be promiscuous! Not that men don’t apply a similarly brutal calculus of sexual aesthetics based on evolutionary biological drivers, it’s just happenchance that in aggregate men apply a lot less discrimination than women. Except in the area of age, where men are pickier than women.
It would be interesting to see some solid research on this.
Anecdotally I think a relatively small number of both men and women are magnets for the rest. The men are highly attractive and unscrupulous, the women not completely unattractive and easy.
So if a woman has cheated once, it will likely be with an attractive man with a high body count. Similarly for a man who has cheated once – it will likely be with a less attractive woman, with a high body count, who has signalled easy availability.
It would be interesting to see some solid research on this.
Anecdotally I think a relatively small number of both men and women are magnets for the rest. The men are highly attractive and unscrupulous, the women not completely unattractive and easy.
So if a woman has cheated once, it will likely be with an attractive man with a high body count. Similarly for a man who has cheated once – it will likely be with a less attractive woman, with a high body count, who has signalled easy availability.
Funny, Martin.
Funny!
Oh to be ten years younger. And not be with the missus, as I imagine she’d kick up a stink
The cynical answer is, out with the 3% of men that the 93% of women will select, when they want to be promiscuous! Not that men don’t apply a similarly brutal calculus of sexual aesthetics based on evolutionary biological drivers, it’s just happenchance that in aggregate men apply a lot less discrimination than women. Except in the area of age, where men are pickier than women.
Funny, Martin.
Funny!
Promiscuous with who?
Just a joke.
Likewise.
It’s hilarious how often we read in serious publications – either men or women are more promiscuous than the other sex.
Do they know how it works?
Exactly. Aren’t they being promiscuous with each other?
Exactly. Aren’t they being promiscuous with each other?
Likewise.
It’s hilarious how often we read in serious publications – either men or women are more promiscuous than the other sex.
Do they know how it works?
With whom you mean.
Just a joke.
With whom you mean.
Out where?
Asking for a friend.
Promiscuous with who?
Not all, but about 96%.
Yeah, really!! I lamented it awhile ago. I’m doing my best!!
All the women are out being promiscuous 😉
Not all, but about 96%.
Yeah, really!! I lamented it awhile ago. I’m doing my best!!
Why are all the replies to this by men, out of interest?
The common denominator between all the non- or partially-monogamous cultures the author cites is that they’ve largely not advanced beyond hunter-gatherer status, which – surprise – the Left really, really wants us to regress to. Yes, I said regress, because that form of society never accomplishes anything. Stable, faithful pair bonds on the other hand, have a proven track record of creating advanced societies with broad and deep prosperity for its members.
That’s very simplistic and so very wrong about “the left”.
That’s very simplistic and so very wrong about “the left”.
The common denominator between all the non- or partially-monogamous cultures the author cites is that they’ve largely not advanced beyond hunter-gatherer status, which – surprise – the Left really, really wants us to regress to. Yes, I said regress, because that form of society never accomplishes anything. Stable, faithful pair bonds on the other hand, have a proven track record of creating advanced societies with broad and deep prosperity for its members.
Having read both MH and LP books, this author misrepresented both of their nuance and arguments. Ah, the folly of youth on display in so many ways in this article.
Having read both MH and LP books, this author misrepresented both of their nuance and arguments. Ah, the folly of youth on display in so many ways in this article.
This idea that social structures don’t evolve is frankly insane. Societies compete for resources, often in more brutal ways than organisms. Those social structures that make a tribe more fit to compete for resources win out. This is why matriarchal societies are limited to geographically isolated areas. It’s not that one is better than the other or more ‘natural’, the aggressive , patriarchal societies absorb any matriarchy.
This idea that social structures don’t evolve is frankly insane. Societies compete for resources, often in more brutal ways than organisms. Those social structures that make a tribe more fit to compete for resources win out. This is why matriarchal societies are limited to geographically isolated areas. It’s not that one is better than the other or more ‘natural’, the aggressive , patriarchal societies absorb any matriarchy.
The ‘let women be promiscuous’ schtick was done by radical feminists about 50 years ago when the pill became became widely available. It didn’t work out well for women who weren’t wealthy or well educated, or couldn’t be choosy. It didn’t work out well for the others, either. While men thought that all their Christmases had come at once, women were soon lamenting that men wouldn’t grow up and commit to relationships, and one of the best selling guides for women in NY was ‘How to Snag a Man’, ‘snag’ being trap, ensnare, capture, or use some other subterfuge. It was followed by The Rules, and numerous others, all saying the same thing. If you as a woman want a long term relationship, don’t put it about.
Hasn’t that always been the case.
I don’t know. I’m a man. We work to our own rules.
Yes, Patriarchy has always divided women into the wife and the w***e. One kept for marriage and the other because men have ‘needs’ and these ‘needs’ mythologically can’t be contained. As I poined out in a previous comment, women go along with this for good reason.
I don’t know. I’m a man. We work to our own rules.
Yes, Patriarchy has always divided women into the wife and the w***e. One kept for marriage and the other because men have ‘needs’ and these ‘needs’ mythologically can’t be contained. As I poined out in a previous comment, women go along with this for good reason.
Hasn’t that always been the case.
The ‘let women be promiscuous’ schtick was done by radical feminists about 50 years ago when the pill became became widely available. It didn’t work out well for women who weren’t wealthy or well educated, or couldn’t be choosy. It didn’t work out well for the others, either. While men thought that all their Christmases had come at once, women were soon lamenting that men wouldn’t grow up and commit to relationships, and one of the best selling guides for women in NY was ‘How to Snag a Man’, ‘snag’ being trap, ensnare, capture, or use some other subterfuge. It was followed by The Rules, and numerous others, all saying the same thing. If you as a woman want a long term relationship, don’t put it about.
Interesting article, but I’m not sure the assertion “natural selection doesn’t care much for your long-term happiness” is correct. Yale University studies of the eye movements of three-month-old infants watching puppet shows suggest that a “rudimentary moral sense” is innate (Paul Bloom, Just Babies). From an evolutionary perspective, feeling good when we do good things and feeling bad when we do bad things, is adaptive. We derive pleasure both from cheering the good guys and punishing the bad guys, which influences everything from social media pile-ons to the pangs of conscience felt by the 99% of us who aren’t sociopaths. We experience instinctive revulsion at harming innocent strangers, and prisoner studies suggest that even violent offenders are convinced that they are good.
There is circumstantial evidence to explain why the evolution of a conscience gave us an edge. Homo sapiens has been around for about 300,000 years, but the earliest war graves have only been dated to 14,000 years ago, in Jebel Sahaba near the Egyptian-Sudanese border, at a time when sedentary populations along the Nile were suffering from drought. For 95% of the time that sapiens have walked the earth, warfare sems to have been non-existent. Of the 3,000 older skeletons found in 400 sites across the world dating to between 50,000 and 15,000 years ago, less than a handful show any signs of human violence (Matther Piscitelli, Misled by Ethnography).
Writing in the seventeenth century, Thomas Hobbes could be forgiven for assuming that the “natural” state of man was of war of all against all without the controlling hand of the Leviathan, but you don’t need to be a fan of Rousseau’s Noble Savage to explain earlier human behavior. Population densities were extraordinarily low and resources were relatively abundant. Living together in bands maximized the chances of securing food and warding off predators. There probably was some competition for females given the slight sexual dimorphism among humans, but in the paleolithic era any behavioral adaptations that encouraged collaboration would have improved our evolutionary fitness. That sadly might include our proclivity to shame those who don’t conform to cultural norms, including gender stereotypes.
Monogamy tends to be common for birds and relatively rare for mammals (less than 10% of species), but it soars among primates and especially in modern humans. Monogamy almost certainly emerged among hunter-gatherers at a time when the concept of accumulated wealth was non-existent. It is strongly correlated across all species with heavy paternal investment in child-rearing. Human babies have been described as the “Mama’s Boys” of nature, with the longest childhood of any species on the planet. While there is some evidence that promiscuous bad boy “alphas” tend to have more children in hunter-gatherer societies, the likelihood of them surviving to adulthood and having children of their own is lower without the loving care of both parents.
Thank you for that erudite exposition. It has ruined my evening!
Any chance of a reference for this?
Great post.
Most studies in the area focus on nomadic hunter-gather groups, which was pretty much everyone 15,000 years ago, at a time when there really was no concept of accumulated wealth.
One such study is the Evolutionary History of Hunter-Gatherer Marriage Practices (2011) by Robert S. Walker et al. They looked among other things at evidence of how hominin morphology has evolved, particularly declining sexual dimorphism, moderate sperm counts and testicular size.
Ethnographies of nomadic hunter-gather societies also suggest that monogamy is the predominant model, and results in higher survivability for offspring. They also tend to share resources and are less patriarchal than horticultural societies.
Most studies in the area focus on nomadic hunter-gather groups, which was pretty much everyone 15,000 years ago, at a time when there really was no concept of accumulated wealth.
One such study is the Evolutionary History of Hunter-Gatherer Marriage Practices (2011) by Robert S. Walker et al. They looked among other things at evidence of how hominin morphology has evolved, particularly declining sexual dimorphism, moderate sperm counts and testicular size.
Ethnographies of nomadic hunter-gather societies also suggest that monogamy is the predominant model, and results in higher survivability for offspring. They also tend to share resources and are less patriarchal than horticultural societies.
Thank you for that erudite exposition. It has ruined my evening!
Any chance of a reference for this?
Great post.
Interesting article, but I’m not sure the assertion “natural selection doesn’t care much for your long-term happiness” is correct. Yale University studies of the eye movements of three-month-old infants watching puppet shows suggest that a “rudimentary moral sense” is innate (Paul Bloom, Just Babies). From an evolutionary perspective, feeling good when we do good things and feeling bad when we do bad things, is adaptive. We derive pleasure both from cheering the good guys and punishing the bad guys, which influences everything from social media pile-ons to the pangs of conscience felt by the 99% of us who aren’t sociopaths. We experience instinctive revulsion at harming innocent strangers, and prisoner studies suggest that even violent offenders are convinced that they are good.
There is circumstantial evidence to explain why the evolution of a conscience gave us an edge. Homo sapiens has been around for about 300,000 years, but the earliest war graves have only been dated to 14,000 years ago, in Jebel Sahaba near the Egyptian-Sudanese border, at a time when sedentary populations along the Nile were suffering from drought. For 95% of the time that sapiens have walked the earth, warfare sems to have been non-existent. Of the 3,000 older skeletons found in 400 sites across the world dating to between 50,000 and 15,000 years ago, less than a handful show any signs of human violence (Matther Piscitelli, Misled by Ethnography).
Writing in the seventeenth century, Thomas Hobbes could be forgiven for assuming that the “natural” state of man was of war of all against all without the controlling hand of the Leviathan, but you don’t need to be a fan of Rousseau’s Noble Savage to explain earlier human behavior. Population densities were extraordinarily low and resources were relatively abundant. Living together in bands maximized the chances of securing food and warding off predators. There probably was some competition for females given the slight sexual dimorphism among humans, but in the paleolithic era any behavioral adaptations that encouraged collaboration would have improved our evolutionary fitness. That sadly might include our proclivity to shame those who don’t conform to cultural norms, including gender stereotypes.
Monogamy tends to be common for birds and relatively rare for mammals (less than 10% of species), but it soars among primates and especially in modern humans. Monogamy almost certainly emerged among hunter-gatherers at a time when the concept of accumulated wealth was non-existent. It is strongly correlated across all species with heavy paternal investment in child-rearing. Human babies have been described as the “Mama’s Boys” of nature, with the longest childhood of any species on the planet. While there is some evidence that promiscuous bad boy “alphas” tend to have more children in hunter-gatherer societies, the likelihood of them surviving to adulthood and having children of their own is lower without the loving care of both parents.
“Olympia Campbell is a PhD student in evolutionary anthropologist at UCL.(sic.)”
Really? What is that pray?
Additionally is the caption photograph Pinocchio’s mother, does anyone know?
ps. Good to see someone is paying attention and that “anthropologist” has been swiftly been changed to anthropology! Bravo!
As devotees of pop culture will know, the woman in the photo is the latest feminist role model Phoebe Waller Bridge (aka Fleabag). Spawned by arty parents, given a career head start by the BBC she is now attempting to ‘break into’ Hollywood as some sort of feminist action hero. If unkind critics are to be believed she, and her stateside enabler Kathleen Kennedy, have all but broken the Lucas Films branch of Disney with their strident “go Woke” projects.
Thank you, I shall have to brush up on my contemporary culture!
I rather thought given the caption title that the young woman with the prominent proboscis was seeking help from the Catholic Church, in what they call ‘ordinary time’*.
I also couldn’t help but recall that the splendid Romans would have awarded her the cognomen ‘Nasica’ for such an outstanding asset.**
(*Hence the green vestment.)
(** As for example with the famed Consul, Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica Corculum, 206-141 BC.)
Like Alison (below) I watched (some of) the first episode of ”Fleabag’. I found it to be thoroughly nasty and distasteful – not funny, not mildly amusing, not entertaining. Her ‘arty parents’ ought to be ashamed, as should the BBC for enabling this in the first place.
Like Alison (below) I watched (some of) the first episode of ”Fleabag’. I found it to be thoroughly nasty and distasteful – not funny, not mildly amusing, not entertaining. Her ‘arty parents’ ought to be ashamed, as should the BBC for enabling this in the first place.
That explains a lot. I wondered why this plain girl was suddenly everywhere, so I watched the first episode of “Fleabag”, thinking it might be a comedy in the Miranda Hart mode. Largely dull, and when the main character is shown masturbating to Barack Obama’s picture, it was obvious what it was going to be.
Hollywood is already dead, so she can’t really do it much more damage.
Hollywood is dead but there are some golden oldies on Taliking Pictures.
It’s like a lot of female comedy. Act 1: washing female dirty laundry in public; Act 2: there is no Act 2.
Trying too hard to be a female led version of Peep Show but evidently lacking the same quality of writing. Cringe on its own isn’t the basis for comedy.
Hollywood is dead but there are some golden oldies on Taliking Pictures.
It’s like a lot of female comedy. Act 1: washing female dirty laundry in public; Act 2: there is no Act 2.
Trying too hard to be a female led version of Peep Show but evidently lacking the same quality of writing. Cringe on its own isn’t the basis for comedy.
Thank you, I shall have to brush up on my contemporary culture!
I rather thought given the caption title that the young woman with the prominent proboscis was seeking help from the Catholic Church, in what they call ‘ordinary time’*.
I also couldn’t help but recall that the splendid Romans would have awarded her the cognomen ‘Nasica’ for such an outstanding asset.**
(*Hence the green vestment.)
(** As for example with the famed Consul, Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica Corculum, 206-141 BC.)
That explains a lot. I wondered why this plain girl was suddenly everywhere, so I watched the first episode of “Fleabag”, thinking it might be a comedy in the Miranda Hart mode. Largely dull, and when the main character is shown masturbating to Barack Obama’s picture, it was obvious what it was going to be.
Hollywood is already dead, so she can’t really do it much more damage.
As devotees of pop culture will know, the woman in the photo is the latest feminist role model Phoebe Waller Bridge (aka Fleabag). Spawned by arty parents, given a career head start by the BBC she is now attempting to ‘break into’ Hollywood as some sort of feminist action hero. If unkind critics are to be believed she, and her stateside enabler Kathleen Kennedy, have all but broken the Lucas Films branch of Disney with their strident “go Woke” projects.
“Olympia Campbell is a PhD student in evolutionary anthropologist at UCL.(sic.)”
Really? What is that pray?
Additionally is the caption photograph Pinocchio’s mother, does anyone know?
ps. Good to see someone is paying attention and that “anthropologist” has been swiftly been changed to anthropology! Bravo!
“But can any of this tell us how to live? I’m not convinced. Natural selection doesn’t care much for your long-term happiness and doesn’t provide us with the means to build a moral and sexual ethics.”
No, natural selection certainly cannot tell us how to live. No “ought” from “is.”
Unless, that it, we have some notion of what the good life looks like. If a life of promiscuity for women (and men) is the life you want, then no evidence of this kind will have any bearing. But in the West, we once had a (flawed, only-partially-realized) vision of the good life, and it included a safe, stable environment for children to come to maturity—about 20 years each.
To get any form of THAT, we will have to recognize the sexual revolution for the failure that it is.
Really, Why?
Perhaps one reason is that it allowed women to use sex, as opposed to their sexual attractiveness, for validation. And they went on to do so. That is, post pill, they started to value themselves according to the men they had slept with, not the men who would do so, if only they had the chance. From drooling men to ejaculating ones, if you like.
The result is destabilising for society, and for children, and arguably it leaves women feeling used and bitter – even if for some this only happens when age takes them below the bar at which a woman is attractive even for casual sex.
Perhaps one reason is that it allowed women to use sex, as opposed to their sexual attractiveness, for validation. And they went on to do so. That is, post pill, they started to value themselves according to the men they had slept with, not the men who would do so, if only they had the chance. From drooling men to ejaculating ones, if you like.
The result is destabilising for society, and for children, and arguably it leaves women feeling used and bitter – even if for some this only happens when age takes them below the bar at which a woman is attractive even for casual sex.
Really, Why?
“But can any of this tell us how to live? I’m not convinced. Natural selection doesn’t care much for your long-term happiness and doesn’t provide us with the means to build a moral and sexual ethics.”
No, natural selection certainly cannot tell us how to live. No “ought” from “is.”
Unless, that it, we have some notion of what the good life looks like. If a life of promiscuity for women (and men) is the life you want, then no evidence of this kind will have any bearing. But in the West, we once had a (flawed, only-partially-realized) vision of the good life, and it included a safe, stable environment for children to come to maturity—about 20 years each.
To get any form of THAT, we will have to recognize the sexual revolution for the failure that it is.
I think it is telling that the First Feminist Mary Wollstonecraft had two miserable relationships outside marriage, and her daughter Mary Shelley wrote “Frankenstein” after experiencing the horror of a “sexually free” life in France with poets Lord Byron and Percy Shelley.
Mind you Ruskin had a bit of shock on his wedding night in the Hotel Danieli did he not?
Mind you Ruskin had a bit of shock on his wedding night in the Hotel Danieli did he not?
I think it is telling that the First Feminist Mary Wollstonecraft had two miserable relationships outside marriage, and her daughter Mary Shelley wrote “Frankenstein” after experiencing the horror of a “sexually free” life in France with poets Lord Byron and Percy Shelley.
It is more than evident that females have as much sexual desire as males. Furthermore, males know this, that’s why there are huge restrictins placed on women with partriarchy demanding sexual modesty and dishing out horrific sanctions should those imposed restrictions be ignored. The restrictions go from giving a woman a bad reputation to mutilating her with FGM to ensure that she cannot enjoy sex. The worst outcome of these restrictions is placed on the female child. Because men could never know for certain who their progeny is until recently with DNA, the only way men could be sure of their progeny was to own the uterus and therefore the woman/child. To ensure this, men chose younger and younger girls, mere children to be their wives. In Afghanistan the saying is, “Better the girl has her first bleed in her husband’s home and than her father’s home.” Aged 8yrs is the prefered age for a girl to be married in Afganstan, 9yrs in Iran. 1979 the Mullahs brought the marriage age for girls from 18yrs to 9yrs.These are sickening facts. The cost to the human female in these deeply patriarchal societies has been and still is extremely high and biologically against her best interest, the damage is massive.
See Daniel P below.
There is no Daniel P below?????
There is no Daniel P below?????
Where is this evidence that women want multiple partners to ‘fertilise their egg’ as men who would ideally have multiple partners to give their progeny its best chance?
See Daniel P below.
Where is this evidence that women want multiple partners to ‘fertilise their egg’ as men who would ideally have multiple partners to give their progeny its best chance?
It is more than evident that females have as much sexual desire as males. Furthermore, males know this, that’s why there are huge restrictins placed on women with partriarchy demanding sexual modesty and dishing out horrific sanctions should those imposed restrictions be ignored. The restrictions go from giving a woman a bad reputation to mutilating her with FGM to ensure that she cannot enjoy sex. The worst outcome of these restrictions is placed on the female child. Because men could never know for certain who their progeny is until recently with DNA, the only way men could be sure of their progeny was to own the uterus and therefore the woman/child. To ensure this, men chose younger and younger girls, mere children to be their wives. In Afghanistan the saying is, “Better the girl has her first bleed in her husband’s home and than her father’s home.” Aged 8yrs is the prefered age for a girl to be married in Afganstan, 9yrs in Iran. 1979 the Mullahs brought the marriage age for girls from 18yrs to 9yrs.These are sickening facts. The cost to the human female in these deeply patriarchal societies has been and still is extremely high and biologically against her best interest, the damage is massive.
I see she describes Mary Harrington as a “feminist” (i.e., so-called). One awaits Harrington’s response with interest.
2 immediate points:
Scant attention paid to the needs or indeed the safety of children in all this bed hopping; and She’s equating feminism with promiscuity
Reality is, as any fule kno, that some women and some men shag like rabbits and other women and other men are highly monogamous.
There is of course a large and ignored difference between rural (especially farming) women and educated urban women in that the urban women, who make up 99% of the feminist commentariat, tend to have more hang-ups and less sexual agency than horny country lasses who didn’t go to college. The RUFs (Rich Urban Feminists), puffed up with their own superiority and unshakeable sense that they speak for all women lol, are generally unaware of how far ahead of them country lasses are in terms of confidence, happiness and sexual agency, hence earnest articles like this, asking us to let women shag.
But if you’d grown up in the country area where I’m from, women have never been backwards about coming forwards and don’t need any such exhortations lol.
I tried promiscuity, but found it tedious and unfulfilling, but I accept that it works for others, so have at it, if you can find the time.
Dear god what a comment. The boys are having a field day with this article. Out with the smut. It’s an example of what “the lads” get up to when they’re together. Not a pretty picture, but quite enlightening as far as the lack of evolution goes.
Dear god what a comment. The boys are having a field day with this article. Out with the smut. It’s an example of what “the lads” get up to when they’re together. Not a pretty picture, but quite enlightening as far as the lack of evolution goes.
I see she describes Mary Harrington as a “feminist” (i.e., so-called). One awaits Harrington’s response with interest.
2 immediate points:
Scant attention paid to the needs or indeed the safety of children in all this bed hopping; and She’s equating feminism with promiscuity
Reality is, as any fule kno, that some women and some men shag like rabbits and other women and other men are highly monogamous.
There is of course a large and ignored difference between rural (especially farming) women and educated urban women in that the urban women, who make up 99% of the feminist commentariat, tend to have more hang-ups and less sexual agency than horny country lasses who didn’t go to college. The RUFs (Rich Urban Feminists), puffed up with their own superiority and unshakeable sense that they speak for all women lol, are generally unaware of how far ahead of them country lasses are in terms of confidence, happiness and sexual agency, hence earnest articles like this, asking us to let women shag.
But if you’d grown up in the country area where I’m from, women have never been backwards about coming forwards and don’t need any such exhortations lol.
I tried promiscuity, but found it tedious and unfulfilling, but I accept that it works for others, so have at it, if you can find the time.
In some societies wealth passes through men; in others, women. But the author never discusses societies in which wealth is hoarded by a tiny group of (unisex) people who rely chiefly on rent extraction schemes to grow ever wealthier while they distract themselves with intellectual parlor games. This seems like a missed opportunity
In some societies wealth passes through men; in others, women. But the author never discusses societies in which wealth is hoarded by a tiny group of (unisex) people who rely chiefly on rent extraction schemes to grow ever wealthier while they distract themselves with intellectual parlor games. This seems like a missed opportunity
Maybe there is evidence of a wider range of female sociosexual behaviour in other cultures, but how does that serve to advise us of how to proceed in our culture? Our culture, or at least the one which most everyone I have ever met inhabit, is one in which individual development within a loving world centred on the child is a primary foundation for the unfolding of inner freedom in adulthood. When the baby learns to self-regulate its own stress in the presence of loving intimacy it becomes a potentially self determining adult. This may be an ideal but I think there is something in it which points to the importance of monogamous parenting as we have fostered in our culture for some centuries.
Maybe there is evidence of a wider range of female sociosexual behaviour in other cultures, but how does that serve to advise us of how to proceed in our culture? Our culture, or at least the one which most everyone I have ever met inhabit, is one in which individual development within a loving world centred on the child is a primary foundation for the unfolding of inner freedom in adulthood. When the baby learns to self-regulate its own stress in the presence of loving intimacy it becomes a potentially self determining adult. This may be an ideal but I think there is something in it which points to the importance of monogamous parenting as we have fostered in our culture for some centuries.
I haven’t read all the comments but the thought that comes to my mind is that all the societies she mentions are ones where the locus of production is still the home and village so all the children will be known and watched over by everyone, with no requirement for childcare fees and expensive playthings hence the saying it takes a village to raise a child. So any comparisons to current Western cultures where almost all of the raising of children falls on just the parents are mostly irrelevant.
Exactly, or just one parent.
Exactly, or just one parent.
I haven’t read all the comments but the thought that comes to my mind is that all the societies she mentions are ones where the locus of production is still the home and village so all the children will be known and watched over by everyone, with no requirement for childcare fees and expensive playthings hence the saying it takes a village to raise a child. So any comparisons to current Western cultures where almost all of the raising of children falls on just the parents are mostly irrelevant.
As usual, I’m a few days late. Maybe someone will read what follows anyway, even after 328 other comments.
There’s some confusion among commentators over cross-cultural precedents for promiscuity. Some people have commented that all known human communities have “succeeded” and are therefore equally worthy (at least for practical purposes) of emulation. After all, humans are still here. That’s true on the most general level of our species, sure, but not on the more specific level of this or that community. Where are the Babylonians, for instance, or the pre-Vedic Indians?
I suggest that all communities are experiments. Given both human finitude and unstable environments, no community can have it all—and certainly not forever. Each must make choices and thus adapt to changing circumstances. Some of these cultural experiments succeed longer than others, to be sure—that of ancient Egypt lasted for at least 3,500 years—but even the most successful must eventually either mutate dramatically or die.
Many hunting-and-gathering communities seem to have changed little over thousands of years, it’s true, but we actually know little or nothing about their remote ancestors (except, perhaps, for their methods of procuring food—and even those have probably changed more than once due to opportunity, necessity, the influence of neighbors and so on). Their environments have almost certainly changed continually, no matter how gradually, so why assume that their cultures have remained unchanged and therefore well adapted enough for us to envy?
I say all this because so many commentators have used this or that combination of evolutionary psychology (biological determinism) and cultural variation (social constructionism) to advocate throwing out our own longstanding cultural patterns in order to experiment by adopting foreign ones or inventing new ones instead. It seems to me that choosing between marriage and promiscuity, for instance, should not rely on the assumption that this kind of choice amounts to nothing more than visiting a cultural cafeteria and choosing what looks most appetizing to us either as individuals or as political interest groups. What works reasonably well for Himba society (considering both the advantages and disadvantages) would not necessarily work for an industrial society.
Also, I think that we can do better than succumb to the cynicism that political ideologies foster. How about a little modesty? We don’t know why (or even if) our remote ancestors rewarded male promiscuity and punished female promiscuity. We certainly don’t know that primeval men conspired to oppress women. We can speculate on questions of that kind, relying on politically expedient ideologies ranging from psychoanalysis to feminism, but we can’t know.
We can, however, know something about our own history and our own current circumstances (and those of our recent ancestors, including those who still live among us). Marriage has been an imperfect institution, like all others, but it has worked well enough on the whole to satisfy the needs of children. This is its main function and therefore its sine qua non (which doesn’t necessarily entail either hostility or indifference toward single people). Generally speaking, social scientists agree that the children of broken families, lacking either mothers or fathers, are at much greater risk of social or psychological pathology, statistically, than the children of intact families.
But does marriage make either men or women “happy”? Opinion polls notwithstanding, that question remains subjective. For one thing, precisely what is happiness? Some people would define it as a constant state of personal joy, whether sexual or emotional, and others as personal autonomy. If so, then marriage is unlikely to generate happiness. But those who define happiness as one byproduct of interdependence (others being loyalty, affection, contentment and support), then the answer is different—especially if the context is larger than a personal one.
Finally, the function of marriage has not, until very recently, been understood entirely or even mainly in the emotional terms of happiness. It has always had a strong communal function, for example, which is why society has always actively encouraged it both explicitly and implicitly. Apart from anything else, marriage promotes in the private sphere what schools and churches do in the public sphere and thus gradually equips participants with the skills, or at least the sense of duty, that society requires. Otherwise, after all, no community could assume its own demographic or cultural continuity. Also communal is the religious function of marriage. Ideally—in theory, though not always in practice—it is a microcosmic version of cosmic harmony and therefore a venue of holiness. In short, marriage is not merely an excuse for extravagant weddings, much less a “piece of paper.”
Great comment, Paul!
Thank you Paul.What we do know today and since patriarchy took hold of communities and societies that its affect on female children has been deeply sadistic and a great cost to their wellbeing. So ingrained is this sadism that its bearly noticed, often regarded as ‘normal’ and said to be welcomed by women, and indeed women are deloyed in its excercise with the reward of being cared for and looked after should they comply. If they don’t comply the sanctions are horrific, ‘honour’ killing stoning etc.
Great comment, Paul!
Thank you Paul.What we do know today and since patriarchy took hold of communities and societies that its affect on female children has been deeply sadistic and a great cost to their wellbeing. So ingrained is this sadism that its bearly noticed, often regarded as ‘normal’ and said to be welcomed by women, and indeed women are deloyed in its excercise with the reward of being cared for and looked after should they comply. If they don’t comply the sanctions are horrific, ‘honour’ killing stoning etc.
As usual, I’m a few days late. Maybe someone will read what follows anyway, even after 328 other comments.
There’s some confusion among commentators over cross-cultural precedents for promiscuity. Some people have commented that all known human communities have “succeeded” and are therefore equally worthy (at least for practical purposes) of emulation. After all, humans are still here. That’s true on the most general level of our species, sure, but not on the more specific level of this or that community. Where are the Babylonians, for instance, or the pre-Vedic Indians?
I suggest that all communities are experiments. Given both human finitude and unstable environments, no community can have it all—and certainly not forever. Each must make choices and thus adapt to changing circumstances. Some of these cultural experiments succeed longer than others, to be sure—that of ancient Egypt lasted for at least 3,500 years—but even the most successful must eventually either mutate dramatically or die.
Many hunting-and-gathering communities seem to have changed little over thousands of years, it’s true, but we actually know little or nothing about their remote ancestors (except, perhaps, for their methods of procuring food—and even those have probably changed more than once due to opportunity, necessity, the influence of neighbors and so on). Their environments have almost certainly changed continually, no matter how gradually, so why assume that their cultures have remained unchanged and therefore well adapted enough for us to envy?
I say all this because so many commentators have used this or that combination of evolutionary psychology (biological determinism) and cultural variation (social constructionism) to advocate throwing out our own longstanding cultural patterns in order to experiment by adopting foreign ones or inventing new ones instead. It seems to me that choosing between marriage and promiscuity, for instance, should not rely on the assumption that this kind of choice amounts to nothing more than visiting a cultural cafeteria and choosing what looks most appetizing to us either as individuals or as political interest groups. What works reasonably well for Himba society (considering both the advantages and disadvantages) would not necessarily work for an industrial society.
Also, I think that we can do better than succumb to the cynicism that political ideologies foster. How about a little modesty? We don’t know why (or even if) our remote ancestors rewarded male promiscuity and punished female promiscuity. We certainly don’t know that primeval men conspired to oppress women. We can speculate on questions of that kind, relying on politically expedient ideologies ranging from psychoanalysis to feminism, but we can’t know.
We can, however, know something about our own history and our own current circumstances (and those of our recent ancestors, including those who still live among us). Marriage has been an imperfect institution, like all others, but it has worked well enough on the whole to satisfy the needs of children. This is its main function and therefore its sine qua non (which doesn’t necessarily entail either hostility or indifference toward single people). Generally speaking, social scientists agree that the children of broken families, lacking either mothers or fathers, are at much greater risk of social or psychological pathology, statistically, than the children of intact families.
But does marriage make either men or women “happy”? Opinion polls notwithstanding, that question remains subjective. For one thing, precisely what is happiness? Some people would define it as a constant state of personal joy, whether sexual or emotional, and others as personal autonomy. If so, then marriage is unlikely to generate happiness. But those who define happiness as one byproduct of interdependence (others being loyalty, affection, contentment and support), then the answer is different—especially if the context is larger than a personal one.
Finally, the function of marriage has not, until very recently, been understood entirely or even mainly in the emotional terms of happiness. It has always had a strong communal function, for example, which is why society has always actively encouraged it both explicitly and implicitly. Apart from anything else, marriage promotes in the private sphere what schools and churches do in the public sphere and thus gradually equips participants with the skills, or at least the sense of duty, that society requires. Otherwise, after all, no community could assume its own demographic or cultural continuity. Also communal is the religious function of marriage. Ideally—in theory, though not always in practice—it is a microcosmic version of cosmic harmony and therefore a venue of holiness. In short, marriage is not merely an excuse for extravagant weddings, much less a “piece of paper.”
I have a news flash for the author. Women are promiscuous and have been since day one. Just like men, but with societal and cultural obstacles. Fortunately or unfortunately, life is chaos, and no matter how the Boomers and X’ers believe everything can be measured, quantified, and algorithmed, that goes south when it hits up against the human equation. Besides, why be so uptight, hell, enjoy yourself.
Biology generally trumps morality for many people as long as they can get away with it.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Biology generally trumps morality for many people as long as they can get away with it.
I have a news flash for the author. Women are promiscuous and have been since day one. Just like men, but with societal and cultural obstacles. Fortunately or unfortunately, life is chaos, and no matter how the Boomers and X’ers believe everything can be measured, quantified, and algorithmed, that goes south when it hits up against the human equation. Besides, why be so uptight, hell, enjoy yourself.
The only relevance of the evolutionary argument is to explain why differences between male and female behaviour might be innate rather than entirely the result of socialisation.
But this does not tell us what the best arrangement is for happy parents and children.
Here the evidence is that monogamous equal partnerships are usually good for everyone. But we know that they can fail and that some people are not suited to them.
Indeed! Children flourish in happy, stable homes which might be a good argument for discouraging many from becoming parents at all. It seems that a miserable childhood produces a miserable adult who makes a miserable spouse and parent and produces miserable children.
But luckily not always – I have known people from terrible families to make a great success of marriage and parenthood and produce happy, healthy, decent offspring.
But sadly they are the exception.
The people who are least suited to monogamy are narcissistic, machiavellian, psychopathetic men. Unsurprisingly, these are exactly the people society should be trying to deny access to the opportunity to reproduce.
Why only men? Narcissistic women are equally ill suited.
Why only men? Narcissistic women are equally ill suited.
Indeed! Children flourish in happy, stable homes which might be a good argument for discouraging many from becoming parents at all. It seems that a miserable childhood produces a miserable adult who makes a miserable spouse and parent and produces miserable children.
But luckily not always – I have known people from terrible families to make a great success of marriage and parenthood and produce happy, healthy, decent offspring.
But sadly they are the exception.
The people who are least suited to monogamy are narcissistic, machiavellian, psychopathetic men. Unsurprisingly, these are exactly the people society should be trying to deny access to the opportunity to reproduce.
The only relevance of the evolutionary argument is to explain why differences between male and female behaviour might be innate rather than entirely the result of socialisation.
But this does not tell us what the best arrangement is for happy parents and children.
Here the evidence is that monogamous equal partnerships are usually good for everyone. But we know that they can fail and that some people are not suited to them.
Why no reference for this? This one has been on the go in feminist circles for a long, long time and was used to portray the emergence of marriage as a form of slavery in which the woman was the enslaved.
But is there any real evidence for this, or is it just a feminist leaning hypothesis?
Why no reference for this? This one has been on the go in feminist circles for a long, long time and was used to portray the emergence of marriage as a form of slavery in which the woman was the enslaved.
But is there any real evidence for this, or is it just a feminist leaning hypothesis?
Contrast:
with:
Emphasis mine.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513813001219
You’d hardly think we were talking about the same people would you? Article doesn’t go into it, but distress over infidelity is generally strongly linked to violence, homicide and infanticide.
Contrast:
with:
Emphasis mine.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513813001219
You’d hardly think we were talking about the same people would you? Article doesn’t go into it, but distress over infidelity is generally strongly linked to violence, homicide and infanticide.
How sad to see this on Unheard.
How sad to see this on Unheard.
This should have been the lede:
> Natural selection doesn’t care much for your long-term happiness and doesn’t provide us with the means to build a moral and sexual ethics.
This should have been the lede:
> Natural selection doesn’t care much for your long-term happiness and doesn’t provide us with the means to build a moral and sexual ethics.
Perhaps the key point about the practices of the Himba, Fulani etc is that they have remained stable over centuries (I assume) whereas our own pattern of interaction between the sexes is unstable and rapidly changing.
For most men, the 20s are a time of few sexual partners and more and more men are unwilling to marry in their 30s when they have become more attractive to women but all that is available to them are women with high body counts. This is the main reason marriage is dying out.
For most men, the 20s are a time of few sexual partners and more and more men are unwilling to marry in their 30s when they have become more attractive to women but all that is available to them are women with high body counts. This is the main reason marriage is dying out.
Perhaps the key point about the practices of the Himba, Fulani etc is that they have remained stable over centuries (I assume) whereas our own pattern of interaction between the sexes is unstable and rapidly changing.
Excellent article! I have lived in Islamic societies in Africa and the Middle East and can confirm that adultery and promiscuity are widespread but very clandestine.
Even in Sudan with 90% FGM married women have affairs quite frequently and most men are very promiscuous.
Because most marriages are arranged often between cousins there is no romance involved at all.
Men and women are often betrothed in childhood.
The general attitude is whatever happens in secret is fine as long as it remains secret.
The great sin is exposing the family – especially the male members – to the public disgrace of not being able to control their women.
Don’t get caught is the golden rule.
For this reason my male British colleagues had no lack of offers because a relationship so far outside the tribe and neighbourhood was considered low risk and could be conducted under cover of private English lessons as long as a small child relative came along to act as chaperone.
We females teachers had no problem at all as nobody cared about our virtue.
The men always brought a good supply of condoms into the country with them as a half cast baby would be a huge problem for their mistresses.
However white men were considered a good catch because they were assumed to be wealthy and a small handful did marry local girls and bring them back to England. They had to pay quite a steep bride price in US dollars cash. A highly valued currency.
Many less fortunate girls were sold in marriage as second wives to Gulf Arabs and treated basically as slaves.
There is no longer any stigma attached to female promiscuity in the west.
Having a large number of sex partners only adds to the status of an above averagely attractive woman.
All that matters is how attractive she is.
If she is wealthy so much the better.
A former colleague of mine – very beautiful and very promiscuous – made a very successful marriage to a wealthy man who attended her local church just in time to have a baby before menopause.
They are still happily married 20 years later and living in the lap of luxury on the Cote d’Azur.
And pillars of the local Anglican church.
Nobody cares about her highly promiscuous past. She is wealthy and successful.
That is all that matters.
You are a true Cynic Sir. Diogenes of Sinope would be proud of you!
If I am Sir it is only because life has made me so!
Incidentally I am not a Sir!
My apologies.
My apologies.
If I am Sir it is only because life has made me so!
Incidentally I am not a Sir!
In what world do you live that you think a woman having a high number of sexual partners adds to the status of a woman? Women are mostly very secretive about their body counts and that’s for a reason.
I’m not secretive. many notches on my belt, some famous men. But who’s counting.
Clare – if they are famous men, and assuming they didn’t hang around for a long term relationship, then I’m afraid you are just a notch on their belt, not vv.
You may be proud of your “famous men”, but they aren’t proud of you, except in so far as you add to some numeric total they might be proud of.
I’m surprised this hasn’t left you feeling a bit negative about men. It’s a tough lesson, but most women learn it early and stop using casual sex for validation. They realise they are being used, and that for the man they were just convenient, easy and there was nothing better there at the time.
Wow, what a nasty, sexist response!! You don’t know my lovers felt or what I felt. That’s all a projection that says so much about you, and your attitude towards women and nothing about me or my lovers.
Wow, what a nasty, sexist response!! You don’t know my lovers felt or what I felt. That’s all a projection that says so much about you, and your attitude towards women and nothing about me or my lovers.
Notches are on butts, not belts.
No. Rifles, actually.
Clare – if they are famous men, and assuming they didn’t hang around for a long term relationship, then I’m afraid you are just a notch on their belt, not vv.
You may be proud of your “famous men”, but they aren’t proud of you, except in so far as you add to some numeric total they might be proud of.
I’m surprised this hasn’t left you feeling a bit negative about men. It’s a tough lesson, but most women learn it early and stop using casual sex for validation. They realise they are being used, and that for the man they were just convenient, easy and there was nothing better there at the time.
Notches are on butts, not belts.
No. Rifles, actually.
Does she mean status amongst other women. That might be true in secret, but it’s an odd status marker that can only be exhibited in secret.
I’m not secretive. many notches on my belt, some famous men. But who’s counting.
Does she mean status amongst other women. That might be true in secret, but it’s an odd status marker that can only be exhibited in secret.
You are a true Cynic Sir. Diogenes of Sinope would be proud of you!
In what world do you live that you think a woman having a high number of sexual partners adds to the status of a woman? Women are mostly very secretive about their body counts and that’s for a reason.
Excellent article! I have lived in Islamic societies in Africa and the Middle East and can confirm that adultery and promiscuity are widespread but very clandestine.
Even in Sudan with 90% FGM married women have affairs quite frequently and most men are very promiscuous.
Because most marriages are arranged often between cousins there is no romance involved at all.
Men and women are often betrothed in childhood.
The general attitude is whatever happens in secret is fine as long as it remains secret.
The great sin is exposing the family – especially the male members – to the public disgrace of not being able to control their women.
Don’t get caught is the golden rule.
For this reason my male British colleagues had no lack of offers because a relationship so far outside the tribe and neighbourhood was considered low risk and could be conducted under cover of private English lessons as long as a small child relative came along to act as chaperone.
We females teachers had no problem at all as nobody cared about our virtue.
The men always brought a good supply of condoms into the country with them as a half cast baby would be a huge problem for their mistresses.
However white men were considered a good catch because they were assumed to be wealthy and a small handful did marry local girls and bring them back to England. They had to pay quite a steep bride price in US dollars cash. A highly valued currency.
Many less fortunate girls were sold in marriage as second wives to Gulf Arabs and treated basically as slaves.
There is no longer any stigma attached to female promiscuity in the west.
Having a large number of sex partners only adds to the status of an above averagely attractive woman.
All that matters is how attractive she is.
If she is wealthy so much the better.
A former colleague of mine – very beautiful and very promiscuous – made a very successful marriage to a wealthy man who attended her local church just in time to have a baby before menopause.
They are still happily married 20 years later and living in the lap of luxury on the Cote d’Azur.
And pillars of the local Anglican church.
Nobody cares about her highly promiscuous past. She is wealthy and successful.
That is all that matters.
I am sure the women of Northwest Namibia are excellent creatures but I would not wish my daughter to take them as role models.
I am sure the women of Northwest Namibia are excellent creatures but I would not wish my daughter to take them as role models.
Generally speaking, western civilization has been based upon a single building block: the nuclear family. In western civilization, there have been any number of social, economic, governmental, etc. variables at play. Yet, the bedrock of these societies has been the nuclear family. Whether married or not, most western cultures have consisted of a male and female, who are essentially pair bonded, often for life. There are children, grandparents, etc. who extend these nuclear families.
This has been the norm in the West for several millennia. However, the norm began to change during the last century.
Previous generations have seen sometimes slow, but steady advances in their societies. Frequently, these advances, over time, led to improvements in society as a whole.
However, viewing western civilization over the last half century, we see a degradation of society. We have become more fractious; more belligerent, close minded, and less socially cohesive.
I believe that it’s reasonable to say we are watching the decline and fall of western civilization. I cannot say with certainty that the root cause of that is the abandonment of the nuclear family. I would leave that to the “experts,“ who can interpret that according to their relative ideologies.
However, considering the fact that there has been a major change in human society, roughly concomitant with the dissolution of the nuclear family, I cannot help but believe it is a significant contribution.
Generally speaking, western civilization has been based upon a single building block: the nuclear family. In western civilization, there have been any number of social, economic, governmental, etc. variables at play. Yet, the bedrock of these societies has been the nuclear family. Whether married or not, most western cultures have consisted of a male and female, who are essentially pair bonded, often for life. There are children, grandparents, etc. who extend these nuclear families.
This has been the norm in the West for several millennia. However, the norm began to change during the last century.
Previous generations have seen sometimes slow, but steady advances in their societies. Frequently, these advances, over time, led to improvements in society as a whole.
However, viewing western civilization over the last half century, we see a degradation of society. We have become more fractious; more belligerent, close minded, and less socially cohesive.
I believe that it’s reasonable to say we are watching the decline and fall of western civilization. I cannot say with certainty that the root cause of that is the abandonment of the nuclear family. I would leave that to the “experts,“ who can interpret that according to their relative ideologies.
However, considering the fact that there has been a major change in human society, roughly concomitant with the dissolution of the nuclear family, I cannot help but believe it is a significant contribution.
What? NO mention of Christianity? Pagan Rome was all about males – wealthy slave-owning males who were heads of households – having whatever sex they wanted, as long as it was a power-dynamic that fitted the culture. So no sex with a peer’s wife, but use your slave as a semen-receptacle. The Christian community was called upon by the early Church to monogamy in marriage on the back of the OT Law, which Jesus showed was being broken at many points, but which was still valid. A follower of Jesus knew was early as the fifties AD that to divorce and marry someone else was to commit adultery.
What? NO mention of Christianity? Pagan Rome was all about males – wealthy slave-owning males who were heads of households – having whatever sex they wanted, as long as it was a power-dynamic that fitted the culture. So no sex with a peer’s wife, but use your slave as a semen-receptacle. The Christian community was called upon by the early Church to monogamy in marriage on the back of the OT Law, which Jesus showed was being broken at many points, but which was still valid. A follower of Jesus knew was early as the fifties AD that to divorce and marry someone else was to commit adultery.
I’m always the last to catch on, but can’t find much by way of logical links between letting women be promiscuous and the various ways cultures raise children. The fact that those societies are ‘promiscous’ (which needs a more precise definition–a quasi-poygamous arrangement isn’t really the same thing), doesn’t tell us anything about the well-being of the children, the happiness of the mothers, or the success of the societies in general.
The editor will often write a titilating header to get us to read the piece.
The editor will often write a titilating header to get us to read the piece.
I’m always the last to catch on, but can’t find much by way of logical links between letting women be promiscuous and the various ways cultures raise children. The fact that those societies are ‘promiscous’ (which needs a more precise definition–a quasi-poygamous arrangement isn’t really the same thing), doesn’t tell us anything about the well-being of the children, the happiness of the mothers, or the success of the societies in general.
Interesting to imagine what would happen to our own societies if we simply switched them to resemble, in sexual terms, the ones the author describes. Indeed are we already running that experiment, at least in part.
If I was a physically attractive man, with no obligation to commit resources, but with six regular sex partners to choose from plus a few on the side – would I even bother to work much? I could live on post coitum breakfasts.
if I was unattractive, would I give up, or would I work hard to earn money to buy sex on the side with good looking men’s women?
If I was a woman, would I work to support my children?
If taxes were increased to pay women to have unsupported kids, would this disincentivise men further from working? How would the unattractive men feel about paying for attractive men’s fun, and women’s kids?
Interesting to imagine what would happen to our own societies if we simply switched them to resemble, in sexual terms, the ones the author describes. Indeed are we already running that experiment, at least in part.
If I was a physically attractive man, with no obligation to commit resources, but with six regular sex partners to choose from plus a few on the side – would I even bother to work much? I could live on post coitum breakfasts.
if I was unattractive, would I give up, or would I work hard to earn money to buy sex on the side with good looking men’s women?
If I was a woman, would I work to support my children?
If taxes were increased to pay women to have unsupported kids, would this disincentivise men further from working? How would the unattractive men feel about paying for attractive men’s fun, and women’s kids?
An anthropologist friend assured me that there is always “some tribe in Africa which does things differently”, and on which endless research papers can be produced.
The title of this piece assumes that women are not promiscuous, which is inherently and demonstrably false; it’s just that, on average, they’re not as promiscuous as men.
An anthropologist friend assured me that there is always “some tribe in Africa which does things differently”, and on which endless research papers can be produced.
The title of this piece assumes that women are not promiscuous, which is inherently and demonstrably false; it’s just that, on average, they’re not as promiscuous as men.
You are free to do what you like, free to sleep with whom you like, run up a body count. Totally free to do that.
BUT…you are also free to accept the consequences and the rest of us are free to judge your decisions and choices, up to and including whether we wish to associated with you.
Exactly. For whatever reason, and it doesn’t matter why, most men prefer a low body count when they get ready to marry. They win again, because there are plenty of low body count gals, younger and prettier too, happy to marry a high body count guy in his 30s with a job and a reasonable physique. Terribly unfair of course. So sad for the high body count women in their 30s. I expect this lesson will be learned the hard way. I’m a male. Perhaps a female can tell me if casual loveless sex is as much fun as we are told. I’ve only known the other kind.
Daniel P, in what way is your comment relevant to what I’ve written? It is clear that what I’ve written is far too much to digest in this conversation about female sexuality and it’s not going to be addressed because it makes clear the horrific consequenses that patriarchy has had for little girls. It’s actually brought about men’s so called ‘need’ to take up paedophilia so that he can be certain of his progeny. Child marriage and its dreadful consequensces, children giving birth, is the norm in many countries.
Girls of ages 10, 11 and 12 being forced to give birth is a painful reality and very hard to think about and comprehend. Nature doesn’t care about them and neither do men.
It is unfortunate and disappointing that homo sapiens as we are today survived. We females are very badly designed. We are fertile before we are mature. 1 in 6 die in childbirth today in countries that still have no maternity care. It remains today the most dangerous thing a human female can do…give birth at any age. The younger the child giving birth, the higher the death rate. Had the death rate been higher our species might well have failed.
Way back in the distant past, and noted in primitive tribes found in the Amazon today, their people recognise this, so multiple repeated and early births tend not to take place. It’s after the agricultral age when we bred cattle that we started in a similar mindset to ‘breed’ humans. Mutiple and young births which still take place today in Africa, India, Pakistan and Eastern countries are a mark of Patriarch’s sadistic behaviour.
The mark of a civilized country is one that allows its daughters to reach full physical maturity before embarking on child birth, around 18 to 20 yrs of age. That leaves out all of the East and some of South America. It’s the biggest crime men have committed against the female of the species.
“… the biggest crime men have committed against the female of the species.”
Sorry Elaine but that’s simply not true. Many of the so-called patriarchal cultures about which you complain are perpetuated by women. It is the older conservative women in many societies who scorn the liberal minded and liberal acting younger women and do so much to keep them in their place. Enough of the misandry.
Sorry PN but you ‘don’t get it’. It has always been in the best interest of the oppessed to go along with the oppressors. Their reward is that they get treated with respect and honoured and favoured by the patriarchy. Consequently, FGM for example is carried out by the grandmothers. In less horrendous societies women are just as likely to call ‘that women’ a ‘tart’ or a ‘slapper’ etc. as the men who require these definitions. This sorts out the ones men can used to relieve their ‘needs’ (which most societies regard ridiculously as uncontrolable) ‘men have needs’, from those women who are suitable as wives, i.e. the ones who have kept themselves pure.
Sorry PN but you ‘don’t get it’. It has always been in the best interest of the oppessed to go along with the oppressors. Their reward is that they get treated with respect and honoured and favoured by the patriarchy. Consequently, FGM for example is carried out by the grandmothers. In less horrendous societies women are just as likely to call ‘that women’ a ‘tart’ or a ‘slapper’ etc. as the men who require these definitions. This sorts out the ones men can used to relieve their ‘needs’ (which most societies regard ridiculously as uncontrolable) ‘men have needs’, from those women who are suitable as wives, i.e. the ones who have kept themselves pure.
“… the biggest crime men have committed against the female of the species.”
Sorry Elaine but that’s simply not true. Many of the so-called patriarchal cultures about which you complain are perpetuated by women. It is the older conservative women in many societies who scorn the liberal minded and liberal acting younger women and do so much to keep them in their place. Enough of the misandry.
It is unfortunate and disappointing that homo sapiens as we are today survived. We females are very badly designed. We are fertile before we are mature. 1 in 6 die in childbirth today in countries that still have no maternity care. It remains today the most dangerous thing a human female can do…give birth at any age. The younger the child giving birth, the higher the death rate. Had the death rate been higher our species might well have failed.
Way back in the distant past, and noted in primitive tribes found in the Amazon today, their people recognise this, so multiple repeated and early births tend not to take place. It’s after the agricultral age when we bred cattle that we started in a similar mindset to ‘breed’ humans. Mutiple and young births which still take place today in Africa, India, Pakistan and Eastern countries are a mark of Patriarch’s sadistic behaviour.
The mark of a civilized country is one that allows its daughters to reach full physical maturity before embarking on child birth, around 18 to 20 yrs of age. That leaves out all of the East and some of South America. It’s the biggest crime men have committed against the female of the species.
Girls of ages 10, 11 and 12 being forced to give birth is a painful reality and very hard to think about and comprehend. Nature doesn’t care about them and neither do men.
Yikes! I wouldn’t want to associate with you!
Exactly. For whatever reason, and it doesn’t matter why, most men prefer a low body count when they get ready to marry. They win again, because there are plenty of low body count gals, younger and prettier too, happy to marry a high body count guy in his 30s with a job and a reasonable physique. Terribly unfair of course. So sad for the high body count women in their 30s. I expect this lesson will be learned the hard way. I’m a male. Perhaps a female can tell me if casual loveless sex is as much fun as we are told. I’ve only known the other kind.
Daniel P, in what way is your comment relevant to what I’ve written? It is clear that what I’ve written is far too much to digest in this conversation about female sexuality and it’s not going to be addressed because it makes clear the horrific consequenses that patriarchy has had for little girls. It’s actually brought about men’s so called ‘need’ to take up paedophilia so that he can be certain of his progeny. Child marriage and its dreadful consequensces, children giving birth, is the norm in many countries.
Yikes! I wouldn’t want to associate with you!
You are free to do what you like, free to sleep with whom you like, run up a body count. Totally free to do that.
BUT…you are also free to accept the consequences and the rest of us are free to judge your decisions and choices, up to and including whether we wish to associated with you.
I think most promiscuous women get married less as regular joes don’t want women with a high body count. Unplanned childlessness is a thing.
I think most promiscuous women get married less as regular joes don’t want women with a high body count. Unplanned childlessness is a thing.
“Sexual disenchantment can’t be blamed on evolution.” Is the ironic use of that byline intentional, or simply ignorant? If “the whole show” is evolutionary, sexual disenchantment can’t come from anywhere but evolution, by definition.
“Sexual disenchantment can’t be blamed on evolution.” Is the ironic use of that byline intentional, or simply ignorant? If “the whole show” is evolutionary, sexual disenchantment can’t come from anywhere but evolution, by definition.
“where children are still raised to become happy and healthy adults” if only they were. but they are not.
“where children are still raised to become happy and healthy adults” if only they were. but they are not.
This is not, of course, the first female led backlash against the sexual revolution.
That happened in the strange form of 70s puritanical feminism. This was directed not straight at female promiscuity though but at anything that suggested inequality in sexual relations. So sex with a man who cared absolutely nothing for you was oddly still fine: but makeup, sexualised (or even pretty) clothes, heels, sexy underwear, even shaving legs or armpits became a bit suspect. Basically any way in which women might be seen as “pandering to” the opposite sex.
Essentially this was magical thinking. Behaving as if the plain fact that women were being used as sex objects by men could be removed by removing the symbols that surrounded female sexualisation. So long as you made no effort to please, the act was rendered magically egalitarian. Being run through by a series of men who treated you like a hole on legs was liberating. Putting on stockings to please a man who genuinely loved and cared for you was oppression.
It’s taken some time for a younger generation of feminists to cast off this magical thinking.
This is not, of course, the first female led backlash against the sexual revolution.
That happened in the strange form of 70s puritanical feminism. This was directed not straight at female promiscuity though but at anything that suggested inequality in sexual relations. So sex with a man who cared absolutely nothing for you was oddly still fine: but makeup, sexualised (or even pretty) clothes, heels, sexy underwear, even shaving legs or armpits became a bit suspect. Basically any way in which women might be seen as “pandering to” the opposite sex.
Essentially this was magical thinking. Behaving as if the plain fact that women were being used as sex objects by men could be removed by removing the symbols that surrounded female sexualisation. So long as you made no effort to please, the act was rendered magically egalitarian. Being run through by a series of men who treated you like a hole on legs was liberating. Putting on stockings to please a man who genuinely loved and cared for you was oppression.
It’s taken some time for a younger generation of feminists to cast off this magical thinking.
We don’t live in hunter gatherer or even pastoralist societies. We live in civilizations fed by farms and factories, with modern medicine, central heat, and codified laws.
The sexual revolution completely divorced sex from child rearing. Childbirth could easily be delayed, or prevented altogether, and antibiotics now generally erase the most common venereal diseases.
At the same time, births out of wedlock (a mostly lower income level phenomenon) are at all time highs, while the birth rates themselves itself are plummetting (a mostly middle to upper class phenomenon). The “comfortable concentration camp” of the suburban nuclear family is a dwindling millieu, replaced by the barren, childless haunts of the upper middle classes, or by the desperate struggles of single mothers on state relief and support orders.
It’s all well and good to cheer on women’s liberation. But they aren’t the only humans on the planet, and much of their purported “liberation” has had appalling consequences for everyone, not the least of which are fatherless men and boys.
I would go so far as to say that nearly all of our social pathologies are a direct result of the decline of the nuclear family.
We don’t live in hunter gatherer or even pastoralist societies. We live in civilizations fed by farms and factories, with modern medicine, central heat, and codified laws.
The sexual revolution completely divorced sex from child rearing. Childbirth could easily be delayed, or prevented altogether, and antibiotics now generally erase the most common venereal diseases.
At the same time, births out of wedlock (a mostly lower income level phenomenon) are at all time highs, while the birth rates themselves itself are plummetting (a mostly middle to upper class phenomenon). The “comfortable concentration camp” of the suburban nuclear family is a dwindling millieu, replaced by the barren, childless haunts of the upper middle classes, or by the desperate struggles of single mothers on state relief and support orders.
It’s all well and good to cheer on women’s liberation. But they aren’t the only humans on the planet, and much of their purported “liberation” has had appalling consequences for everyone, not the least of which are fatherless men and boys.
I would go so far as to say that nearly all of our social pathologies are a direct result of the decline of the nuclear family.
….
….
Evolutionary forces are all very well in terms of explanatory power where the past is concerned, but I doubt there’s much guide to the future in it – well, not any future in which we possess the ambition to live longer than we would if left to nature, or to avoid the many different ways in which a non-artificial existence would be utterly miserable.
On the matter of promiscuity, I’ve always thought it unfair that women lose out from gaining a reputation for promiscuity while men experience the opposite – at least, now that we can control pregnancy and most sexually transmitted diseases can be either cured or easily avoided with basic precautions.
That is not to say that I recommend promiscuity of course, merely that if it happens to be a freely-experienced instinct within a particular person, the decision to proceed ought not to include the matter of whether that person is male or female. However society, while having thankfully got past the days where sex out of wedlock permanently ruined a woman’s good character, still isn’t near to a fair-minded view that treats men and women equally on this matter.
Yes, promiscuous women are sluts and whores, promiscuous men are studs! Women grow old, men grow distinquished. The old double standard.
There are changes taking place amongst modern yoof. My daughters attended an all girls’ school with an all boys’ school across the way. It was interesting to note that some boys were still admiring ‘Jack the Lad’ who claims to have ‘had’ X numbers of sexual encounters with various girls, (always was a likely story). Back at the girls’ school this ‘Stud’ was labelled Mr Chlamydia and no one would touch him. Some of the boys who had sisters were wise to this, but the others carried on admiring this eejot. It was going to ake time for the message to get through.
If it’s OK with you Elaine I’d like to suggest we stop calling promiscuous women sluts or slags and call them Ms Chlamydias instead. Or maybe Clams for short.
Not your or my choice, it was what naturally emerged from a girls’ school. Young female adults today have their own language which you are not party to, and if you were to make the suggestion you’ve made above you’d simply get laught at. Girls and women have their own esoteric definitions of different kinds of men which is not presecribed by men.
Not your or my choice, it was what naturally emerged from a girls’ school. Young female adults today have their own language which you are not party to, and if you were to make the suggestion you’ve made above you’d simply get laught at. Girls and women have their own esoteric definitions of different kinds of men which is not presecribed by men.
If it’s OK with you Elaine I’d like to suggest we stop calling promiscuous women sluts or slags and call them Ms Chlamydias instead. Or maybe Clams for short.
There are changes taking place amongst modern yoof. My daughters attended an all girls’ school with an all boys’ school across the way. It was interesting to note that some boys were still admiring ‘Jack the Lad’ who claims to have ‘had’ X numbers of sexual encounters with various girls, (always was a likely story). Back at the girls’ school this ‘Stud’ was labelled Mr Chlamydia and no one would touch him. Some of the boys who had sisters were wise to this, but the others carried on admiring this eejot. It was going to ake time for the message to get through.
Yes, promiscuous women are sluts and whores, promiscuous men are studs! Women grow old, men grow distinquished. The old double standard.
Evolutionary forces are all very well in terms of explanatory power where the past is concerned, but I doubt there’s much guide to the future in it – well, not any future in which we possess the ambition to live longer than we would if left to nature, or to avoid the many different ways in which a non-artificial existence would be utterly miserable.
On the matter of promiscuity, I’ve always thought it unfair that women lose out from gaining a reputation for promiscuity while men experience the opposite – at least, now that we can control pregnancy and most sexually transmitted diseases can be either cured or easily avoided with basic precautions.
That is not to say that I recommend promiscuity of course, merely that if it happens to be a freely-experienced instinct within a particular person, the decision to proceed ought not to include the matter of whether that person is male or female. However society, while having thankfully got past the days where sex out of wedlock permanently ruined a woman’s good character, still isn’t near to a fair-minded view that treats men and women equally on this matter.
I am a greater believer in social evolution and if women are displacing men as socio-economic powerholders then they may well find it attractive – both erotic and important to status – to adopt some of their sexual characteristics.
I am a greater believer in social evolution and if women are displacing men as socio-economic powerholders then they may well find it attractive – both erotic and important to status – to adopt some of their sexual characteristics.
Really good thought provoking article. Thank you.
Really good thought provoking article. Thank you.
The best chances for a woman to meet a man who is interested in her, who suits her, whom she genuinely likes beyond just sexual attraction, and whom she may even love, who has the potential for a long-term relationship with her that is not primarily based on superficial sexual attraction, often occur in younger years when she is most attractive to men.
During this time, a woman has the best opportunity to choose a man from the largest pool of potential partners she will ever have. If she is interested in having children, it’s up to her to select the most suitable man to together unlock the greatest potential for long-term happiness. A man and a woman who continue to appreciate each other even after 20 years, who remain best friends, and would never give up on each other, even if their sexual life is not as passionate as it was 20 years ago.
Since men of the same age do not always possess the same level of sexual attraction, often developing it in their 30s or later, it requires a certain level of intelligence for a woman not to be swayed by short-term hormonal feelings and to avoid sabotaging her choice of partner.
I don’t believe there is a later time for childbearing and partner selection that is better suited than this. I consider the age range between 20 and around 28 to be ideal for women. Any other time for having children I regard as suboptimal. During this age, one is still “young” when the children are grown, full of vitality, dynamism, optimism, and motivation to be a joyful and active mother. This age allows children to have young parents for a long time and grow with them.
From my own experience, I can say that experimenting with relationships and sleeping with women at the end of the day had no real significance for me. Engaging in an intimate interpersonal relationship solely based on sexual attraction, which you would not have entered into without that attraction because the person did not truly fit you or did not interest you, usually has no positive impact on yourself. You do not gain experiences that benefit you; you do not develop your personality further, and you deprive yourself of time for important things and important people in your life. You spend intimate time with someone who would not have matched you personally, character-wise, or empathetically had it not been for these sexual stimuli. One is simply “seduced.” A very fitting word. If exposed to this too often, one deteriorates quickly and suffers damage to their personality.
I also agree with many comments here that the traditional family principle, which we all know, is the most productive and efficient. It has survived and has been adapted by successful civilizations to thrive in the competition of their time. Today’s competition among civilizations takes place on a global scale.
If Western society continues down the path of further reducing its birth rate, failing to ensure stable and happy homes for children, diminishing men’s drive to create secure and nurturing environments for their families through diligence, hard work, and motivation, and pushing women and men into a competitive labor market that adversely affects unemployment, income, and the housing market, as well as dividing resources between two households instead of fostering a common household, Western societies will lose their international competitiveness in just 50 years. This trajectory will lead to impoverishment, ultimately undermining the principles of justice, equality, freedom, and security as we presently comprehend and practice them, all due to the influence of those with disproportionately loud megaphones advocating misguided policies.
A rousing defense of the savage life. What’s next, recipes for boiling heads?
A rousing defense of the savage life. What’s next, recipes for boiling heads?
Maybe what we should do is what feminists have been proposing since the 1970’s… namely abandon marriage altogether. If women want to have children (fewer and fewer these days), they can. For women with their own resources (more and more these days), a husband is just another burden for them.
Is he a burden though? Two people living together can divvy up the chores and the two incomes provide a nicer lifestyle.
But having someone around allllllllll the time. It would drive me insane, and from what I see of people in very close relationships, it does to pretty much everyone.
That’s why going to the pub for a few hours with your mates at the weekend is a godsend, it breaks up the monotony of the daily life. I love the missus and kids but my God do I need a break now and again
I’m sure they appreciate it.
Ha! Ha! Good point.
Ha! Ha! Good point.
One needs other things to do but my wife is out a lot herself.
And so does she!!
I’m sure they appreciate it.
One needs other things to do but my wife is out a lot herself.
And so does she!!
One has to learn how to live together. There is still a lot of privacy of thought but the relationship is priceless.
I agree. I could see living in housing side by side.
Me too. I can’t put up with anyone for more than a few days, solitude is what keeps me sane.
That’s because you’re an introvert, just an observation not a put down. It takes one to know one!
That’s because you’re an introvert, just an observation not a put down. It takes one to know one!
That’s why going to the pub for a few hours with your mates at the weekend is a godsend, it breaks up the monotony of the daily life. I love the missus and kids but my God do I need a break now and again
One has to learn how to live together. There is still a lot of privacy of thought but the relationship is priceless.
I agree. I could see living in housing side by side.
Me too. I can’t put up with anyone for more than a few days, solitude is what keeps me sane.
Two people can divvy up the chores without being a husband and wife.
But having someone around allllllllll the time. It would drive me insane, and from what I see of people in very close relationships, it does to pretty much everyone.
Two people can divvy up the chores without being a husband and wife.
That is a solution.
There are two problems though.
1. For all the “own resources”‘thar women supposedly have, it usually ends up being a man who pays for her, either through alimony or paying the taxes that fund the government/ admin “jobs” that women go for. Why should men fund women and kids?
2. As the African American community shows, women are pretty useless at bringing up kids, especially boys, or maintaining a decent society.
That’s blatantly racist, Samir.and actually not even true. I wonder how good a job you would do at bringing up boys alone.
That’s blatantly racist, Samir.and actually not even true. I wonder how good a job you would do at bringing up boys alone.
Good point William.
Is he a burden though? Two people living together can divvy up the chores and the two incomes provide a nicer lifestyle.
That is a solution.
There are two problems though.
1. For all the “own resources”‘thar women supposedly have, it usually ends up being a man who pays for her, either through alimony or paying the taxes that fund the government/ admin “jobs” that women go for. Why should men fund women and kids?
2. As the African American community shows, women are pretty useless at bringing up kids, especially boys, or maintaining a decent society.
Good point William.
Maybe what we should do is what feminists have been proposing since the 1970’s… namely abandon marriage altogether. If women want to have children (fewer and fewer these days), they can. For women with their own resources (more and more these days), a husband is just another burden for them.