individual and societal responses in civilization

Wintery Knight has a great post recently about some of the same old controversial topics that have plagued the manosphere for years. Specifically, should women who get pregnant after premarital sex expect the men to marry them?

The irony is that this topic plagues conservatives because they are blinded to the answer of their own question, or they just flat out refuse to accept actual solutions that work because they favor the status quo. In regard to abortion and politics, I think it is willful blindness coupled with the fact that an unpopular sentiment will literally destroy their position with most of the voting base.

Even a poster Lynn cannot see the answer, and she has worked at a crisis pregnancy center:

Hey, long time reader first time commenter. Greetings!

I have worked at a crisis pregnancy center as a volunteer counselor, and I can confirm mike’s sentiment and reasoning. Most of the women that I worked with told me that they did not expect the father to remain in the picture. Occasionally we would have a couple who would show up together and go through the process together, but that was a rare (and refreshing) occasion. Men were designed to be leaders. When you leave a woman alone in an unplanned pregnancy situation, logic leaves, and fear takes over. I have NEVER had a client who wanted to abort. Those that moved towards abortion, in spite of our efforts, did so because they saw it as their only option. If they had a man in the picture, I believe their cases could have turned out differently. But men nowadays have been programmed to see abortion as a woman’s decision – as in they don’t have the right to get involved. If that changed, and men stepped up, I believe we would see fewer abortions.

Ultimately, men were designed to be leaders, and women were designed to be responders. You can preach at women all you want, but any positive changes in this culture, on that front, are going to have to start with the men, not the women.

Also, I should add that I don’t actually believe that 80% of the abortions would have been prevented by male involvement. That sounds like blame shifting to me. But, maybe half that number?

Here’s my comment that I posted over there with some additional analysis.

Praytell. How would you convince these immoral men (e.g. non-Christians) to act morally?

Immoral men won’t suddenly become moral and “take responsibility” and neither will immoral women. This is like asking a dog not to bark or a cow not to moo. It ain’t gonna happen.

In fact, do you know what worked prior to the 1960s:

  1. There was no such thing as no-fault divorce.
  2. If you divorced you were shunned.
  3. Virginity was prized.
  4. Women policed women on sex: keep your legs shut until marriage because giving men sex before marriage decreases the incentive for men to be married.
  5. Women and their bastard children were shunned.
  6. I’m sure there are some I’ve missed.

All of these things actually led to stable families, men getting married to women and staying married, the vast majority of women were virgins at marriage or had less than 1-2 partners, less unhappiness, etc.

How many women would actually want to go back to this model? Very few. Most women now want to have their cake and eat it too: pre-marital sex galore and lots of fun. Then marriage, children, and settling down. They don’t want to go back to “antiquated and outdated values.”

The majority of actual Christian men who practice what they preach keep it in their pants and won’t pressure a woman into sex. Yet, like our blog host Wintery Knight here no women want to marry someone like that, and they will even go out of their way to have sex with cads and players and so-called “Christian” men.

There are precisely two models that work:

  1. Societal standard — where women police other women and shun those that do not comply.
  2. Biblical standard — the daughter is the possession of the father, and all suitors must go through him to his daughter. The daughter is kept safe from making mistakes when she is blinded by her attraction to cads and palyers. Subsequently, this is why the father gives away the daugher to the man at marriage which models Genesis 2.

As you can see in the two models that work, it is both men and women that are involved in the marriage process so as to not allow cads and players to violate their daughters. Fathers are responsible for their daughters, and women police the women who want to get out of line and break the status quo.

Incentivizing divorce ensures that less men want to marry because women can take their stuff, and men that do get married may be robbed of half their stuff and lose the children anyway. Fathers are not there to protect and teach daughters what masculinity is and it’s proven in the statistics that fathers without daughters are substantially more promiscuous. Likewise, no one but Christians and Muslims would say that daughters are the possession of their fathers.

Women policing other women is obvious. Social stigmas are there for a reason, and the reason that “slut”, “whore” and other now-called “sex-negative” names exist for women is because they were used to enforce compliance of non-sex onto women who were not married.

Galatians 5:9 “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.”

Nothing will work except reversion of everything the feminists have done since the 1960s, and a society wide acceptance of the societal standard of women policing women, and fathers protecting daughters. Good luck getting all of those laws repealed and for that morality to happen.

We’re past the point of societal wide changes happening. Yet, we can still make prescriptions to individual women who are willing to accept advice.

Thus, the best advice to an individual woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant outside of marriage — keep your legs shut.

No amount of shaming is going to make a man stick around in a pregnancy if he doesn’t want to. The best way to ensure that a man sticks around for a pregnancy is actual marriage prior to sex and the pregnancy.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Advice to Christian women, Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to individual and societal responses in civilization

  1. Looking Glass says:

    When you “assume the system”, especially one intrinsically evil, no amount of fiddling can remove the natural consequences of a system. The intentional deception of our culture is to always assume the current system is “Right”, unless it’s “wrong and if you don’t believe it shouldn’t be changed, you’re evil”.

    There’s a reason the Lord is constantly extorting his people to “wisdom” (or “be wise”) throughout the Bible. The enemy wants us to be fools, and we readily do it.

  2. donalgraeme says:

    Good response DS. And WK’s post was spot-on as well. This is ultimately a problem that is fixed by correcting female behavior, not male behavior.

  3. Red says:

    So, you have women who are statistically less-likely to put-out. Most women who don’t put-out are religious. Most men who do put-out want to keep riding the rides until it gets boring, and when they settle-down, they want to do so with a much younger woman. There are far more men who are younger and doing it now than there are marginally-attractive “retired veterans.” For a lot of women, it’s really a question of whether or not they’ll die a virgin. You have to assume that there are going to be more women who will accept the risks versus not producing offspring, or we wouldn’t be here. Especially when you consider women who aren’t conventionally attractive.

    Which isn’t to say that there shouldn’t be some system of female solidarity in place, in terms of virginity, but you also can’t say that it’s all the women’s fault. That’s the same as saying that a woman who wears nothing but body paint shouldn’t be viewed as a sexual object. Male behavior can provoke female behavior in the same way that the opposite is true. You can’t get a bunch of women to wait for no sex ever. I know, in a perfect world, everyone would behave themselves, but it’s not necessarily practical to expect all women to sit on their eggs forever.

  4. Red says:

    I’d also like to add that for all that women are verbally encouraged to put-out, men are encouraged to do so 1000x more. First of all, there’s a beautiful woman everywhere: in the paper, on a billboard, on food… women are encouraged to wear makeup,etc. Which isn’t bad in and of itself, but there’s an unnatural amount of “beautiful” women out there. And *then* you have women who do revealing things/ wear revealing things, in advertisements and the media. And *then* you have scantly-clad-to-nothing in any degree of easily-accessible porn. And then you have music, fiction, and other things. And after all of that, the cultural expectation to sleep with several women, because it’s easy, and men want other men to be at their level of moral degradation.

    To me, what you term “Feminism” takes the second seat and if anything, capitalizes on the main problem. The history of actual Feminism might be another good post. It was actually started to end widespread domestic violence, due primarily to alcoholism.

  5. @ Red

    To me, what you term “Feminism” takes the second seat and if anything, capitalizes on the main problem. The history of actual Feminism might be another good post. It was actually started to end widespread domestic violence, due primarily to alcoholism.

    Gonna need a source for that.

    Which isn’t to say that there shouldn’t be some system of female solidarity in place, in terms of virginity, but you also can’t say that it’s all the women’s fault. That’s the same as saying that a woman who wears nothing but body paint shouldn’t be viewed as a sexual object. Male behavior can provoke female behavior in the same way that the opposite is true. You can’t get a bunch of women to wait for no sex ever. I know, in a perfect world, everyone would behave themselves, but it’s not necessarily practical to expect all women to sit on their eggs forever.

    Uh, no.

    As I said, there was double protection in place: women policed women, and fathers were there to teach girls about male-female interaction and to ward off cads and players.

    Since this system is broken, the only thing you will get to work is to reach individual people both male and female.

    Thus the advice: If women don’t want to be pregnant out of marriage then don’t have sex.

    I know it’s not a newflash but only women can get pregnant. So it’s a individual woman’s issue if she’s pregnant before marriage.

    Obviously, upstanding [Christian] men are going to wait to get married to have sex, but it’s gonna be impossible to tell immoral men to not have sex before marriage unless societal wide changes are in effect. Hence, the burden of “no-pregnancy” falls on women.

    It’s a simple matter of biology my dear.

  6. Red says:

    I already spend way too much time online, but yeah, I will provide sources. Prohibition was one of the first feminist efforts, and ultimately successful. Susan B. Anthony was actually 100% Pro-life, believe it or not, and forced-abortions were a thing back in the day. That would take me a whole day of research to dig-up. and present, but there’s proof of that last statement in online government archives. The first point, I first discovered in a Mennonite history book, and, with difficulty, I found a few references on the internet. But try Googling a political perspective that Google doesn’t support. If anyone can find it, I can.

    Okay, so you have a mother and a father teaching their daughters to protect their baby-maker, and as a result, these women learn to police themselves, as it so happens, en masse, which is basically no different from any point you made. Obviously, not everyone’s going to have a doting parental unit in her life, because reality.

    I’m arguing that women will still have sex, and take the risk of pregnancy lightly, or maybe even seek it on some level (whether or not they’ll carry it full-term). The latter part has nothing to do with the biological impulse that lead her to get it on with that jerk in the first place: it’s a moral decision. But overall, the burden of no pregnancy falls on preventative measures to avoid pregnancy, whatever those might be.

    I think you want to figure-out how to get people to marry young and how to give divorce a higher penalty. The first part is about prevention, and taking women out of the sexual marketplace, adding to the incentive for men to marry. I think encouraging a guy to get married at a young age (keyword: *get* married, not meet *a* girl) is actually more important. You can tell a woman to wait forever, but she won’t. She can wait a little longer than a boy, that’s it. You can argue that it’s so difficult for men to get married young, but young is the easiest time, because there are many more unmarried, “untainted” women his age than when he gets older.

    You’d have to give divorce a higher penalty outside of the law, like at church, or whatever. I think in terms of changing the sexual culture, that’s not happening any time soon. So instead, people need to stop saying that it’s wise to wait until they’re a little bit more mature to settle down. It’s a dumb idea. Putting career first won’t do anyone favors either.

    With a higher divorce penalty, you’ll have less women in the sexual marketplace, because no one seems to marry divorced women. Less women having unmarried sex means less men having unmarried sex. A higher divorce penalty also means that men will marry sooner, because more men will be married.

    Another thought I had, if you discourage divorce, you discourage one party for cheating or both parties for calling it quits early, due to questionable morality. Our culture does this somewhat, but friend-loyalty, unfortunately, runs deep in this neck o’ the woods.

  7. Red says:

    This is about Susan B. Anthony and her involvement with temperance/ other stuff:

    http://susanbanthonyhouse.org/her-story/biography.php

    Anthony expressed an anti-abortion sentiment (I believe, in a letter from the Editor) in Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s *The Revolution* its July 8, 1869 installment. It was accessible from the Library of Congress website a few months ago, and I’m now unable to find it (Thanks, Obama.) However, you can Google the reference to find liberals who deny its existence. If anyone happens to hold a copy of this, keep it secret, keep it safe.

    I don’t think I’ll find anything that will illustrate domestic abuse statistics before and/or after the American Prohibition on the web, but here’s an article linking domestic violence with the objectives of the Temperance Movement:

    http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1273&context=wmjowl&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Ddomestic%2520violence%2520rates%2520temperance%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26ved%3D0CDEQFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.law.wm.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1273%2526context%253Dwmjowl%26ei%3D0O7mU4iWLsKUyASF0IBg%26usg%3DAFQjCNEJpYr_-HKQHPGSPVlD6ujRTwIF8Q%26sig2%3Dx6dYJoN3oJP2JszbWCMJVQ#search=%22domestic%20violence%20rates%20temperance%22

    As you can see, it coincided with suffrage, and was practiced by feminists. Obviously, the victims of domestic crime and the mothers of them had a greater incentive to end it than the men. As I recall, the rate of domestic violence was staggering. I know that it was at least one in every three men, and these were church-going people. So as you can imagine, people saw what was going on, and didn’t do anything about it.

    Of course, Google isn’t working with me here, because it’s pro-weed. They all smoke it at their desks all day.

  8. Random Angeleno says:

    Prohibition was not a success. Its supporters may have meant well, but it only led to the rise of organized crime and violence that came in with the withdrawal of official sanction and the regulatory and taxation environment that came with it. I won’t go further as this isn’t the blog for it, but I just wanted to get that counterpoint out there.

    Fully on board with the advice to individual women to keep their legs closed. I realize it’s hard, that’s why they had chaperones in my parents’ generation. But today the burden is firmly on the individual to maintain his or her chastity in light of society’s clear failure to help with that.

  9. @ Random Angeleno

    Go for it if you want. Tangents are fine in this since it’s related to historical society.

  10. Pingback: Random Musings And Links- #3 | Donal Graeme

  11. SirNemesis says:

    @ Red

    I think you want to figure-out how to get people to marry young and how to give divorce a higher penalty. The first part is about prevention, and taking women out of the sexual marketplace, adding to the incentive for men to marry. I think encouraging a guy to get married at a young age (keyword: *get* married, not meet *a* girl) is actually more important. You can tell a woman to wait forever, but she won’t. She can wait a little longer than a boy, that’s it. You can argue that it’s so difficult for men to get married young, but young is the easiest time, because there are many more unmarried, “untainted” women his age than when he gets older.

    And who, pray tell, are these men supposed to marry?

    When men marry has always been determined by when women are willing to marry them, or when the women’s fathers are willing to have the women marry them. This is why historically the age of marriage rises dramatically for men whenever economic opportunities are poor for young men.

  12. @ SirNemesis

    This is true.

    Even in today’s current polls men in their early 20s are more readily willing to marry than women. Women are putting them off for things like career, travel, and other such things.

    The drive for sex in men is so high that men have always been willing to shoulder vast burdens in order to satisfy it. Marriage today is certainly a ‘vast burden’ and yet men still go to it in droves with many slovenly, post-wall women. Scary.

    Of course, the opposite is almost never true unless baby rabies are strong enough that she wants to be married, pop out a kid, and then divorce rape the man because she can’t stand him.

    It is indeed up to women to decide to marry earlier or not.

  13. donalgraeme says:

    It is indeed up to women to decide to marry earlier or not.

    Only if society allows it. And many took steps to either circumvent women’s choice on the matter or incentivize them to marry young.

  14. Pingback: Lightning ROund – 2014/08/13 | Free Northerner

  15. sfcton says:

    Good job Deep

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s