Somewhere between immoral and insane

Find a sturdy old walnut desk to absorb the involuntary blows from your forehead before reading this pathetic screed. Mere pine won’t do.

A bit of meta on the writer’s craft before we go any further: I’m a bit drunk right now. But still:

In a relationship, men want sex and women want attention. Some men give attention knowing they won’t get much sex, and some women give sex knowing they won’t get the full attention they crave. These men are in stressful relationships or are friend-zoned, and these women are easy. The men are known as feminists or beta males, and the women are known as sluts. Both have the same distorted view of the sexual economy, both are this way because of the lies of modern secularism, and both are absolutely miserable and lonely.

Huh? Feminists and beta males are often the same people, but they are not the same thing. Sluts and men who enjoy hanging out with women who aren’t sexing them damn well predate modern secularism, which merely (maybe?) made these types of people more respectable than they were under the religious ancien regime, and this gloss ignores the fact that many of them never gave a shit about the censoriousness of their societies or the “sexual economy” in the first place. And “absolutely miserable and lonely?” I’m undersexed and I have female friends, and that sure as hell doesn’t describe me most of the time.

There’s a third category worth mentioning: Some women give sex knowing that they won’t get attention because they get money for it instead. These women are called whores. A lot of other things, too, many of them synonyms for “whore.” Many of them were once sluts: as Tom Lehrer put it, “Now there’s a charge for what she used to give for free in my hometown.” One of my main goals in life is to do the same thing, but with farm work. Prostitution sure sounds like a part of the sexual economy, given that it’s the most explicitly commercialized form of sex.

However, at least the man can learn and change how he interacts with the opposite sex. For a woman, sexual encounters can’t be taken back. As typical Americans, they’ve neglected long-term fulfillment in exchange for short-term recreation.

Women tend to form stronger bonds with their sexual partners than men do, so ipso facto they have no capacity to learn from their mistakes, pursue self-improvement, or heal from emotional wounds that they’ve sustained, and men totally never make shortsighted decisions. Wow Such Logical.

Feminists squawk that a woman should be able to have all the fun men are having, but in reality, it is in a woman’s best interest to save her virginity for marriage. I realize that it’s too late for this generation, but maybe our children will stumble across this and learn from our mistakes, much how the prudish Victorian era followed the hedonistic Georgian.

I realize that it’s too late for Blair Naso to not have published a garbage summary of British sexual mores, but maybe he can belatedly learn that Victorian Great Britain was swarming with hookers who were like, “Why the fuck is that posh bitch looking down her nose at me? Her shit stinks too! She sore that her husband is making me sore?” So was the Gilded Age United States. The Victorians also had a pretty amazing capacity for hypocrisy.

Studies have shown that the more sexual partners a woman has had, the less likely she is to describe her marriage as happy. Shocker, right? It’s like women were designed to be property.

All kidding aside,

Oh Lord, stuck in the loony dunes again. It’s like kidding, but not really kidding, because a large part of the audience and writers’ pool at Return of Kings sincerely believes that women are properly their chattels.

there is a reason a woman’s virginity has been a value in almost every culture ever. Not only was her father trying to make her more appealing for the suitors, but he knew that she would be able to enjoy the marriage more herself. There’s a reason the #NoHymenNoDiamond on Twitter has resonated.

The reason for that wretched hashtag is very easy to explain: it’s because we are enslaved to the sinful nature and some of us revel in this enslavement because they enjoy being terminally coarse projectile asshats. No one who hangs out around such a hashtag is loving any virtue, female virginity or otherwise. The resentment and censoriousness are rightly dripping.

Sex is a union. Manosphere writers will often say that they’ve watched so much porn, masturbated so often, and had so many partners that sex has become stale, but this becomes reality far more quickly for women who live that lifestyle, because sex for a woman is much more personal by design of her anatomy.

Did anatomy just become the same thing as psychology?

The more men a woman has united with, the less the next union will mean. Men can slip into a marriage with his past being of little consequence, but unfortunately for women, nature is not an equal opportunity employer.

This is quite a daft use of the broad brush. As a rule of thumb, women bond more strongly with their sexual partners than men, but there are endless exceptions. That’s why it’s a rule of thumb, not a law of physics.

Feminists will claim that some women don’t want a husband or children, but I do not believe them. Women are clock-like. Granted, so are men, but we are a different clock.

Naso is more or less right here, although oddly, he swings at and misses the strong natural law argument that women are usually much more driven to have children than men are. This is especially odd given that he just got done attributing women’s greater bonding to their sex partners to anatomy, even though a woman is much more likely to develop a strong bond with a child she has carried, delivered, and nursed than with a man she merely sexed. The reason this didn’t really occur to Naso is that he isn’t so much interested in women as mothers as he is in women as used-up sluts.

Even if a woman decides she does not want a stable, committed relationship, in a few short years she will be too old to get more than a meaningless one night stand from a desperate man, and in a few more years she’ll struggle to get even that. Again, the fathers knew best when they tried to marry their daughters off at a young age.

It depends. Again, rules of thumb can have lots and lots of exceptions. Ones pertaining to relationships certainly do.

Not only is the fornicated woman less able to bond with her future husband emotionally, but her lady parts are also further changed with each sexual encounter, being stretched out so that there is not the same kind of intimate contact she would have if she had only been with one man ever.

Holy shit. First he uses “fornicated” as an adjective, just as censorious, gaslighting white knight prostitute-rescuers use “prostituted,” and then he peddles an urban legend about vaginal function. And of course he misses that other natural use of the vagina, the one that really stretches it out: childbirth. Oops.

Don’t turn to this fellow if you’re looking for tips on your Kegel exercises.

And then there is the sexual disfunction. I used to date this fat, career-focused whore who conveniently found Jesus shortly after graduating college. We were both 22 years old, and to my horror and naivety, she told me that she was no longer able to orgasm during sex. This is the empowered woman in all her glory.

I’m pretty sure Naso uses “whore” in the Jerry Springer sense. He also misspells “dysfunction” and has trouble matching plural nouns with singular verbs. I have little idea of what was up with this particular thick bitch, but it probably wasn’t probative of other women’s sexuality. She could have had newfound religious hangups over sex, she could have been depressed, she could have been tired from work. The only thing I can say with any confidence is that, contrary to Naso’s parlance, her work was not a form of prostitution. That much seems quite unlikely.

What Is A Virgin?

Someone who has been touched for the very first time?

Virginity was an exclusively feminine concept until the advent of Christianity, but even with Christianity it was generally applied only to those who had decided upon lifelong celibacy. Ever wonder why, before feminism, nuns were allowed to administer hospitals and schools? That is because the religious celibate transcends sex roles and becomes something else.

Did this dude miss the whole thing about the Church being a major state actor in medieval Europe at a time when private enterprise was a ramshackle, mostly local affair and secular states were weak, in flux, and under the jurisdiction of a Vatican that functioned as a sort of proto-European Union? Even after the Reformation, the Church (especially the Catholic Church, but in some cases Protestant churches) was in many places the only institution large, solvent, and organized enough to run hospitals and schools. Nuns, not having the financial or personal responsibilities of raising their own children, made sense as a recruiting pool for teachers and nurses.

The flip side of the nun in charge of the orphanage is the monk who makes lavender soap and obsesses on what new flavors he can infuse. It’s perfectly fine for a monk or a nun to disregard traditional sex roles because they have dropped out of the sexual marketplace. Both roles need to be filled, and so the monk or nun has to compensate with both.

I get it. Teaching is totally masculine and men who have wives or children aren’t allowed to enjoy nice soap.

How we got the idea that every man is born with a virginity is beyond me, but the physical reality is that there is no such thing as a male virgin. Considering most literature from that time is lost, the first use of “virgin” to refer to men is likely in Revelation 14:4. St. Basil and others called themselves virgins to make a theological point about ascetic identity, not to define the broad culture or make a statement about biology.

This verges towards sophistry. It is crystal clear that Naso does not consider a woman’s deflowering a merely physical change of the same order as menarche. His whole essay is devoted to the belief that a woman’s loss of virginity is the most powerful psychological experience of her life or close to it. First sexual intercourse usually has an effect on the woman’s anatomy (although not always) and no effect on the man’s (although men can easily enough contract anatomically troublesome venereal infections through vaginal intercourse), but Naso isn’t harping on any of the unmistakable physical changes that both sexes undergo during puberty. He’s using the physical change brought about by deflowering as a crude manifestation, a sacrament, if you will, of the magical spiritual changes that really interest him.

Unless one is going to live a life of prayer and dead languages in the woods, a man should never say, “I lost my virginity at age [x].” Just say, “I had sex the first time.” Did anything actually change when you had sex for the first time? No, you just felt embarrassed and disappointed but held her close anyway.

Naso articulates no logical reason why a woman should not use exactly the same language to describe her first sexual intercourse. Many women experience pain during first intercourse, but this is neither universal nor inevitable. There have to be women who just feel “embarrassed and disappointed but hold him close anyway.” That entire paragraph is a crude social control through which Naso is attempting to dictate other people’s use of the English language.

Both men and women innately understand the great value of a virgin. Men frankly prefer to commit to women without an illustrious sexual past. Yes, some men will still commit to a woman with a lot of experience, but they never prefer it. By keeping her virginity, not only does she has a wider pool of men to choose from but also greater influence. She is more valuable and so can demand that her suitors increase their own value.

“They never prefer it”? Is this fucker some kind of psychic who is able to read the minds of all men? Naso clearly regards virginity as the singular talismanic variable that will immediately make a man forget about all other variables that he would otherwise take into consideration when discerning a woman’s suitability for courtship.

Sluts are a dime a dozen.

Then where do I find some?

The word “easy” implies powerlessness.

Corollary: it also implies that the woman is not using her sexuality to manipulate the shit out of men. It may be an inaccurate or false implication, but it’s an implication nonetheless.

If one slut isn’t pleasing him in some way, a man can move on to the next. Virgins today are rare, and a man will put in much more effort to keep her around. He’ll be hesitant to overplay asshole game. Recall Edward Thatch’s virgin game, now a lost and largely unneeded art:

How did I approach my latest virgin girl? I left the cocky and aloof game in the bar where it belongs and conducted myself like a gentleman who’s not ashamed of his dick. I took both of her hands, looked her straight in the eye and said, ‘I’m going to kiss you now.’

This has to be made explicit: here’s a guy who is moralizing endlessly about how nonvirginal women are ruined sluts, and in the next breath he is extolling some asshole who preens about the conquest of his “latest virgin girl.” Homeboy just dropped through a trap door into a new abyss of disrepute.

Virgins also don’t have to weed through the players. Because she won’t put out until marriage, she doesn’t have to judge whether a man will bail on her if she sleeps with him on the first date. Most men who pursue her want commitment, and they will likely be willing to abstain for a year should the reward be great enough.

That being said, a virgin who is ugly or bitchy will have the same trouble finding a man to invest and commit as a 40-year-old divorced mother. The same is true with attention whores or virgins who are whores at heart. No one is more contemptuous and dysfunctional than the woman (or man) who uses her (or his) virginity as their sense of identity.

There’s some virtue and sense here. Against the odds, maybe, but there is some. That said, the second paragraph does a lot to undercut Naso’s thesis that virgins are less likely to be damaged goods. Plenty of them, it seems, are seriously fucked up.

The more value a person has, the more power they have. This is why someone with a bachelor’s in chemical engineering makes far more than someone with a Ph.D in English. A person whose sole talent is reading has the same financial value as a slut has in sexual value.

For real? This isn’t even an accurate explanation of the American labor market, which as a matter of standard operating procedure promotes scheming liars into positions of high pay, high authority, and objectively low productivity while trapping many farm workers at subminimum wage pay grades. And there’s no reason why a slut, by whatever sexual threshold is in use, inherently has no value to a prospective mate but her raw sexuality. That said, it’s easy enough to see how a man would believe such a thing when his interactions with women are dominated by efforts to cold-approach bottle rats.

Why then is a man who has never had sex so valueless? There are a variety of theories, but in part it is because men are expected to seek out sex instead of waiting for it to come to them. If a man is seeking and failing, then he is of course labeled as a failure. This is not a double standard but a different standard, and it would be easier to adapt to it instead of demanding it change. However, if a man in his 20s has not had sex but can communicate that he easily could, then it makes little difference, since women are more interested in his ability than in his history.

Bull fucking shit. It is a double standard. Whether there are good reasons to maintain this double standard is debatable, but this appeal to the complementarity of the sexes is an Orwellian exercise in euphemism. It’s like saying that it isn’t a double standard not to allow women to vote because their honorable sphere is in the home, not the polis.

“But A Woman Has To Put Out To Get Noticed!”

More lies. Women are the gatekeepers of sex. If the average woman demanded a wedding ceremony before having sex, then most men would be unable to fornicate.

A quick tutorial in how prostitutes operate: each one has sex with multiple men. They aren’t “the average woman” because if their receptivity to casual sex were the norm there’d be no paying market for their services. In other words, under this regime, most men would be unable to have premarital sex without recourse to a prostitute, assuming that no equally eccentric amateur slut is sexually interested in him.

Naso presumes to understand the modern labor market and economics, but he clearly doesn’t understand the real-life applications of Pareto distributions.

Feminists talk about the culture of body image, but who started that? Men have always liked naked girls. It is women who decided to start wearing revealing clothing. True, it can be hard to purchase modest clothing today, but that is because it does not sell well anymore, which again is the fault of women, the buyers of such clothing.

I’ve known prudish amateurs who dress like streetwalkers and hookers who dress like Peoria church moms. It’s a crazy, mixed-up world out there. But it is not hard to purchase modest clothing today–Ross, Walmart, and Target are full of modest clothing lines for both sexes–nor was it impossible to find immodest clothing in some mythical past shrouded by the fog of time, especially since in this mythical past it was unusual for a woman not to have basic tailoring skills. Nor was this past free of whores, who were a ready market for trampy-ass clothing, for signaling purposes if nothing else.

If a woman maintains her physical appearance, she will get noticed. It’s the way she acts that determines by whom she gets noticed. A woman doesn’t need a low-cut blouse to look beautiful, and she doesn’t need to blow men in order for them to want to sleep with her. True, a virgin is terrible in bed, but she can easily learn in time.

They won’t teach you this at church, but women like to have sex. The Greeks and Romans actually believed that women had less control over their sexuality than men, and people today are more and more finding this to be true. I’ve heard it said that women are so prudish because they are afraid of themselves. That might be true, but what is certainly true is that women have more than just six deadly sins.

Even in today’s world, if a woman is a) young, b) sexually inexperienced, c) domestic, d) pleasant to be around, and e) maintains her physical appearance, she can choose any man she wants. Such a woman has the right to demand that a man wait until marriage, and more often than not she will be able to enforce that demand.

Nothing wantonly objectionable here. Don’t expect this to last long.

If the man is not willing to abstain from sex, then she can dump him and take the next man in line. That being said, if she still gives out head or anal, then she is still a common whore and has even less value than the garden variety slut, since the “everything but” virgin is also dishonest with herself. Remember, feminine females get masculine males. It is the androgynous who have to beg and plead for the opposite sex.

Aside from her not really being a common whore by virtue of her not turning tricks with strange men in exchange for cash money or gifts in kind, this is nasty, censorious dipshittery, followed by another outburst of total nonsense. There’s a legitimate natural law argument for refraining specifically from vaginal intercourse, mainly having to do with unintended pregnancies but also having to do with a belief that vaginal intercourse is more sacred than other forms of sexual intimacy. This idea that it’s androgynous for a woman to have anal or oral sex with a man, on the other hand, is just LOLWTF.

Could it just be that Naso’s writing style is really fucking disorganized? Am I making some Occam’s Razor category error here?

Have you ever noticed that the women who discourage conventional sexual temperance are the most promiscuous themselves? Women always encourage other women to make the same sexual choices as them, whether it is to have more sex or to have less. These whores have made an irrevocable choice, and now they try to drag others down with them so they can avoid feeling regret. Feminists demand that a career should be empowering because they have relinquished all the power they already had. Likewise, a sexually temperate women will not encourage licentiousness.

This one writer for AskMen is named Sarah Stefanson. In addition to writing articles discouraging men fromsleeping with virgins, she’s written about the best way to 69 and how to buy women drinks. Nearly every article from her on this “men’s” site is something encouraging men to value the licentious girls and discard the temperate. Is it possible that she’s biased?

Telling a woman to save sex for marriage is the same as telling her not to get a tattoo. In the old days, this advice was common knowledge, but now it’s a regular and permanent choice, like a rite of passage. Regret is one of the most averted emotions, and people will do anything to avoid admitting they screwed up. People would rather double down on a bad mistake than admit they’ve cut their own legs off.

Actual whores don’t try to drag unwilling women into their profession. Blair Naso’s idea of a whore probably plays by different rules, though, since she has never, you know, really engaged in prostitution.

I guess I fall onto the amateur end of this spectrum. I just read that pile of sophomoric garbage and then induced you, my dear readers, to do likewise. Mea culpa. Mea not really maxima culpa.









One thought on “Somewhere between immoral and insane

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s