Hang around in any part of the so-called “manosphere” for any length of time and one will find a concept called Choice For Men. The idea is basically that in some manner, before or after pregnancy a man should be allowed to give up his parental rights as a father and thus be excused from all support obligations. Needless to say this is a very controversial idea!
Background
The genesis for the idea of Choice for Men (C4M for short) was the massive changes in family law and technology that freed women from the strictures of biology and the patriarchal family model that they’d been laboring under in the western world since at least the Middle Ages. Basically, women were of limited use in the economic sphere and so most usually had two real choices: to get married, usually young, or to join a convent or other religious order. With a lack of any form of birth control, (knowledge of which had mostly been lost in Europe) and abortions unregulated but also conducted outside any form of real medical facility or with any form of real medical science and thus extremely dangerous (sometimes poisons were used, for example), women would tend to get pregnant early and often. Due to the risks of child birth , somewhere between 1/10 and 1/5 of all wives would eventually die during the process. Once a woman got married, she tended to fall under the protection and authority of her husband and could not (in most countries most of the past 600 years) own property or divorce. Men, on the other hand , had more say within the family, but were often held responsible for any breakdowns. In England and America for example, in the 18th and early 19th centuries a man could be jailed for misbehavior of his wife, and was responsible for her debts. Because there was no reliable way of testing paternity, men were assumed to be responsible for any children born within the marriage (unless it could be proved that “dad” was away at war or something during the time the child would have to have been conceived) and would thus, in the patriarchal system, owe these children support and could bequeath them family property. Women began to get some rights in America, Great Britain, and some of continental Europe starting in the 19th century. One example was the “tender years” doctrine, which stated that children of “tender years” –generally before age 12- were better off with their mothers. Now, at least sometimes should a divorce occur (still a rarity) the mother would get the children.
This was the situation going into the early 1960’s in the United States, Britain, and most of the western world. Restrictions on women working /owning property had been either dissolved or made less onerous, but working was still something most married women did not do. Divorce was for “cause” and was rather rare, not affecting the vast majority of marriages. Abortion was often illegal, depending on the state. And neither men nor women had any particularly effective means of birth control beyond condoms –which, even used appropriately, have a 1 to 3 percent failure rate. In the US this would all pretty much change within the next 20 years. First, the invention of the pill for women –an effective oral contraceptive- decoupled sex from reproduction in a way that few technologies have ever done. Secondly, starting in 1969 in California, the “no fault divorce” revolution started, sweeping all before it. People no longer had to have reasons (or even collude to lie to a court) in order to get a divorce. One partner getting bored was “reason” enough. Lastly, in 1971 the American Supreme Court in it’s Roe-versus-Wade decision affirmed, via a previously undeclared Right of Privacy – that absolute bans on early abortion would not be allowed. These three changes, combined with the mass movement of most women into the work force for both political and economic reasons and the increasing involvement of western governments (with the US one mostly leading the way) in child support and other consequences of divorce issues, totally changed the balance of power within the family.
The Current Situation
Since this post isn’t about marriage or family courts in general, we thus ignore them and now turn our attention to one question: what is the current status of reproductive rights between men and women? We shall now stick with solely US law. We shall also start with the women. Women currently , of course, are often on artificial birth control, whether an implant or pill. However, should these methods fail – no birth control is 100 percent effective after all, though some of this stuff comes very very close – a woman currently has the following legal options.
1. Abortion. While some women do live rather far from a clinic or Planned Parenthood, a woman usually has about 5 months to arrange transportation or whatever before she has to worry about the state interfering in her decision. Abortions are very safe for women these days and serious complications are at a very low level. I’ll throw the “morning after” pill in here as well, as I don’t want to argue whether it counts as abortion or not. Men have absolutely no say in this whether they want a child she is determined to abort, or do not want a child she is determined to have.
2. If she decides to take the baby to term she has the following further options:
A. Abandonment: Many states have maternal abandonment laws where by new infants (usually these only apply in the first year of life) maybe dropped off at certain locations.
B. Adoption: If there is no marriage, and esp. if the father of the child is not known, it can be very easy to adopt out the child. Often states require a notice be placed in a paper or in a so-called “putative father” registry. This is not widely known, and thus many babies are adopted out without their birth fathers knowledge. That I believe most of these men do not care, doesn’t mean that I am not aware that quite a few would.
C. Keep the child: If the mother chooses to keep the child , so long as she names the father or who she thinks the father is , she is eligible for welfare of various types. The state will attempt to collect support from the father.
D. Sign away rights to the child to the father: A woman can terminate her parental rights in favor of a father.
As far as men are concerned there really is only one word to describe his reproductive rights: nonexistent.
As this link shows Male Reproductive Rights? , a man can be made involuntarily a father via several means from out and out rape to sperm stealing. Incredibly, legally, no actual sexual act (let alone penis in vaginal sex) between the mother and father need occur, nor even any agreement as to the disposition of his sperm. And once a father, while the state will often be very incompetent in enforcing visitation it will be only too competent at enforcing support. This also applies to all cases where a marriage breaks up via divorce: they are now, without exception, moved onto the same child support laws that were originally meant only to apply to TANF (welfare) cases. Men who fail to pay their support –whether through fault of their own or not – are almost invariably labeled “deadbeat dads”. No substitiution of anything other than cash is allowed, so supplying food to your offspring or clothing or doing something such a repair doesn’t count. Child support might be the topic of a future post, so I don’t wish to talk about it now, but men who fail to pay are subject to onerous penalties:
1. Jail, despite what the US Constitution says about “debtors prisons”.
2. Confiscation of licenses and passports
3. Penalties such as fines
4. Garnishment of wages pre-tax ; interception of tax refunds
Anyway, given this background, it’s not surprising that some men are forgoing things like marriage, while others are thinking of ideas such as C4M. Opinions on this subject are all over the place as the links below demonstrate. What do you think?
- LINKS
1. Glenn Sacks
2. Some Feminists Are Not Supportive
3. One Trad Cons Take
Höllenhund
August 10, 2011
“The genesis for the idea of Choice for Men”
It’s also known as “Roe v. Wade for Men”. Obsidian happens to believe it has a realistic chance of becoming a reality in the near future.
Höllenhund
August 10, 2011
“What do you think?”
I think we’ll sooner see financial collapse and a subsequent breakdown of social services (thus making single parenthood financially devastating again) than legal changes in this area. All women, plus men with daughters are all adamantly opposed to the idea of C4M in my opinion.
Höllenhund
August 10, 2011
OR we may see the male birth control pill hit the market. But I’m sure most women will be against that as well.
Höllenhund
August 10, 2011
BTW I’m not good at biology so I have no idea whether the male birth control pill is technologically feasible or not.
thecottagechild
August 10, 2011
Gosh, Clarence, can of worms much? lol
I like this, I’m inclined to side with men being able to abdicate parental rights based on the traditional right of a man to either claim a bastard child or not. I which I case I’m also in favor of option D, as it would be in the best interest of the child. And of course I’m with you on the ridiculous nature and application of child support laws.
One thing though, and I’m prepared to be clobbered for it: stop banging sluts would be a really good advice for a young man who does not see himself in parenting mode. Somewhere in the argument both sides want the other to be more moral, meanwhile no one seems willing to accept that the natural product of sex is pregnancy, not just orgasm. A little self control, whether one is encumbered by religious instruction or not, would go a long way. It’s naive and a little whiny to complain about the failure of b/c “trapping” men into fatherhood – it takes two, every single time.
Clarence
August 10, 2011
Hollenhund:
Yes a male birth control pill is feasible, as are several other methods besides pills. There is a thing in France where the implant something inside the penis and it lasts for several years. It is supposedly safer than a vesectomy in terms of being reversible. Still, it calls for surgery -easy surgery, but surgery nonetheless- and would not be as convenient as a pill, though the advantage of this thing ( I forget the name) is that you can’t forget it, unlike you could forget to take your male BC pill.
Clarence
August 10, 2011
TCC: I agree with you.
Most men don’t want overly promiscuous women as wives or mothers anyway, it’s just the “any port in a storm” affect and the fact that young males are horndogs, and if they aren’t scared of women or particularly religious they aren’t usually going to be thinking of “settling down”.
Aaron Traas
August 10, 2011
Absolutely — however, the fact that women can *be* sluts with impunity and force a man to pay is a bit unfair. I’m all for throwing out the very concept of egalitarianism, and go back to a system of double-standards that protects society as a whole, but this double-standard does the opposite. A man *should* have the right to claim a bastard, or not. This promotes bad behavior on the point of women, and thus enables’ the natural bad behavior of men.
the cottage child
August 10, 2011
A man *should* have the right to claim a bastard, or not.
Agreed.
But blaming women for men’s bad behavior, and vice versa, is what I mean by each side wanting to hold the other to a higher moral standard than they’re willing to live up to themselves. That’s simple immaturity, not some big philosophical dilemma.
cane caldo
August 10, 2011
Maybe you’re right: “bastard rights’” would put some serious upward pressure on the price of casual sex.
My feeling though, is that in a just society, a man must claim his child, and a woman is not allowed to abort one. Performing a quick mental survey of the men I know, and how I thought as a younger man, I’m not sure that all we’d do is lead otherwise relatively conscientious women to an abortion.
“John, I’m pregnant.”
“Sorry, Jane. It’s not mine.”
“It has to be.”
“Oh well. It’s your problem.”
The next sound you’ll hear is of a medical vacuum. I know plenty of Christian women who think abortion is bad…for others. Their situation is especially complicated, you know.
Am I missing something?
alcestiseshtemoa
August 10, 2011
There are feminists whom are ideologically consistent in their liberalism and support choice for men -> http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2011/06/choice-for-men.html
Chels
August 10, 2011
I completely agree with this post Clarence, men should have the right to separate themselves from any children they don’t want. Not to mention that some women lie and get pregnant on purpose to trap the man and force him to do the “right” thing and marry her.
However, what happens when the man wants the baby but the woman chooses abortion instead? Should men have the veto when it comes to pregnancies?
joanna
August 10, 2011
“Should men have the veto when it comes to pregnancies?” Do you mean abortions? If so then, yes.
terri
August 10, 2011
Should men have the veto when it comes to pregnancies?
Yes, Chels. They should. I think this fellow lays out a great argument for just that:
Men Should Be Allowed to Veto Abortions
Do us the courtesy of reading it before commenting on it. At least read half of it.
Brendan
August 10, 2011
The key problem here is a social perception that I do not think will go away anytime soon. That perception is that women have the right to have another unilateral bite at the choice apple because they get pregnant, with the impact of pregnancy and potential health issues, whereas men do not. I don’t think it’s likely that this attitude will change much in the years ahead, really. People do view it as apples and oranges. A more likely help in this area will be reliable hidden male contraception that is the equivalent of the pill in terms of ease of access and use.
joanna
August 10, 2011
Cane – Your example is painfully true. Ouch.
Chels
August 10, 2011
Do you mean abortions? If so then, yes.
What do you mean by that? Let’s say that the woman wants to keep the baby, but the man doesn’t. The man having the veto would mean that the woman gets abortion, regardless of her wishes.
However, Clarence is saying that men should be able to have a “paper” abortion (no child support), to which I agree.
More complicated than you’d think…
joanna
August 10, 2011
You said, “However, what happens when the man wants the baby but the woman chooses abortion instead? Should men have the veto when it comes to pregnancies?”
Men should have the right to veto the woman’s abortion.
If she wants to keep the baby, he shouldn’t be able to veto the pregnancy. But if he wants to keep the baby, he should be able to veto the abortion.
cane caldo
August 10, 2011
All the other usual suspects are here. Where in tarnation is Svar? Did he get banned?
the cottage child
August 10, 2011
My feeling though, is that in a just society, a man must claim his child, and a woman is not allowed to abort one.
Yes, but we don’t live in a just society. My pov is that extra-marital sex is the problem, the rest is the fallout from that. No one wants to keep it zipped, just present different iterations of avoiding the consequences. In a truly just society, we wouldn’t need to have the conversation at all – logic would prevail, and not having sex outside preparation for child-rearing would be “like, duh!”. Instead, we blame each other while we murder and disavow our offspring. Super classy.
cane caldo
August 10, 2011
You’re absolutely right. What I’m asking/suggesting is that we can reclaim that bit of a just society–starting from the premise of men claim their children, and women don’t kill them. Actually, I’m more suggesting that a bastard policy would move us further from that good place.
the cottage child
August 10, 2011
I’m more suggesting that a bastard policy would move us further from that good place.
I don’t think so. As little as I care to agree with Aaron on the matter of women influencing men, it is the net result of feminism that women holding legal influence over men is now the dynamic we’re faced with. The best way a person can protect himself is to exercise self-control. Short of man-rape, that is entirely up to the man. Short of that, a woman should not be automatically given the right to lay claim to a mans entire future simply because a child was created, but because they mutually consented to her sluttiness. A man, at that point, should have the say so in whether or not he will claim the child, the woman’s concern is secondary. It’s a means of mutual shaming influence – don’t have sex, you’re likely to get her pregnant if she’s the slut you’re counting on her being, and then you’ll have to publicly claim or disavow your child – You’re officially a jerk, she’s officially a slut, the child is officially a bastard born of a jerk and a slut.
cane caldo
August 10, 2011
What children? They’ll be dead.
thecottagechild
August 10, 2011
What children? They’ll be dead.
Oooo, good one, I like that. You’re wrong, though – there is always vanity and sentimentality to ensure that not all bastard children will be murdered in the womb or abandoned to the elements. People like to look at reproductions of themselves.
cane caldo
August 10, 2011
Ok, then what percentage of vanity children versus dead children would you find acceptable?
the cottage child
August 10, 2011
what percentage of vanity children versus dead children would you find acceptable?
Please, none. I don’t think that’s the point, do you? What you’re suggesting isn’t a solution, only an ideology. You’ll either have to attach shame and/or legal responsibility to extra-marital sex, or be willing to accept its natural consequences.
joanna
August 10, 2011
Aside from Christ’s return, a national return to true biblical principles is the only thing that will make it all better, and we know that’s not happening. If find it all a bit depressing and hopeless.
Clarence
August 10, 2011
I could never hate a “bastard” child
Morticia
August 10, 2011
I don’t know what percentage of women don’t abort because they can depend on child support but I know quite a few single mothers who never told the fathers they were pregnant and therefore receive no support from a man what-so-ever (unless you count government aid but most of them actually live with their mothers who are also single).
This certainly isn’t a solution that will end the epidemic of out-of-wedlock pregnancies but I can see that it would be more “fair”.
the cottage child
August 10, 2011
I could never hate a “bastard” child
Someone else’s, or your own? The resentment of these children often has to do with hatred for their mothers, if she’s suspected of a trick or a trap. Controlling one’s sperm output is only something a man can manage. Even if a woman believes herself unable or unlikely to conceive, and she becomes pregnant – who’s fault is it??? They’ve mutually consented to her consent. Does that make sense?
You’re a good man, Clarence, most men are quite benevolent. That’s frankly why I consider abortion such a ridiculous canard. Most men would support a woman through a pregnancy that lead to his custodianship or adoption by another family. He rarely gets the option. We now have “birth-rape” to contend with.
David Collard
August 10, 2011
I agree about don’t bang sluts.
We have had an argument here – on another thread- that sluts can’t be shamed, because women only respond to concrete sanctions, not loss of honour. Is this true? Does it affect this case?
Cases where men are induced to marry by the woman becoming pregnant do seem to engender resentment in the man.
Morticia
August 10, 2011
I know that I can’t be shamed. It would have to be some very extreme shaming such as wearing a scarlet letter in public and being spat on everywhere I went. The level of shaming would have to reach levels that most Christians wouldn’t be willing to do.
My grandmother is rather sensitive about her “sense of honor” so perhaps it is a generational thing. She has asked me plenty of times “don’t you have any pride?” Uh..no..not really, Grandma.
the cottage child
August 10, 2011
Uh..no..not really, Grandma.
lol
Clarence
August 10, 2011
Cottage Child:
My own OR someone else’s. It doesn’t matter to me. It’s the misbehavior of adults that leads to bastard children, and that’s where the blame lies.
David Collard
August 10, 2011
That surprises me, Morticia. I always thought women cared about honour. Maybe women only care about consequences. Weird.
Clarence
August 10, 2011
David:
I have heard that women care far less about honor than men to the extent that some misogynists claim they can never have any. Obviously this is an exaggeration, but I think Morticia is not unusual among women.
Saul
August 10, 2011
I agree that people should be keeping it in their pants, male or female. The truth is that keeping it in the pants is not supported anywhere, not even in the church. What is the one group keeping it in their pants? The MGTOW or ghosts. No church supports MGTOW despite how MGTOW are obeying correct sexual morality. This is a subset of how churches are anti single male and anti-male.
David Collard
August 10, 2011
Saul, the Catholic Church teaches against fornication.
Chris
August 10, 2011
In the bad old days, if you did not marry her, she adopted. If you adopted there was an accepted lie “she went to the country” to explain your absence from society and you were let back in, and could court and marry. This cut down the risk of baby mommy having a series of Uncles (all either neglecting or abusing the kids).
I hate to say this, but in many parts of our society abortion now functions the same way. Lower class and religious girls have the child — which is accepted, because the church will not shame fornicators. Upper class girls have terminations & keep their mouths firmly closed, or content themselves with sapphism until they want to breed.
Alte
August 10, 2011
David,
I think Saul’s larger point is that the MGTOW guys are not merely “not fornicating” but that they are celibate lay men. Men who have rejected marriage without taking other vows. But the Catholic Church has absolutely no problem with celibate singles. The single life is considered a valid vocation for both men and women, and there’s a long tradition of monasticism that isn’t limited to monks.
Clarence,
I assume that I’m that “misogynist” you are referring to. I think this is a question of definition. I do think that women can act nobly and in an honorable fashion, but I don’t think that we “have honor” in the same way that men do. In the old days, men would “defend a woman’s honor” or “punish her for dishonoring herself”, but these were extensions of the men’s own honor. Honor is part of the hierarchical system that men use to establish their social status, whereas for women the status is more closely tied to her sexual attractiveness.
Chels
August 10, 2011
If having honor means caring about what other people think about my decisions, seeking their approval and letting them influence me, then I have very little of it and I have no patience for people that actually think that they know what’s better for me than myself and give unsolicited “friendly” advice.
However, if this is not its context here, an explanation would help.
Alte
August 10, 2011
Honor has a lot to do with “conformity”, I agree. Women have a Pussy Pass that lets them shrug off honor in a way that men simply can’t. Women’s behavior has generally been controlled through more concrete methods, and shaming was primarily a method for judging which women should be punished or for warning women about the possible consequences of their actions.
David Collard
August 10, 2011
Honour means honesty, truth-telling, forthrightness. I was brought up with this. It was in the atmosphere. Being manly, in an understated way. Not backbiting. Not whingeing, as we say here. Stoicism, within reason. Being a gentleman.
Yes, I know several celibate Catholic singles, including my best friend. I would be one, except I found the right girl.
Alte
August 10, 2011
Honor is a bit of an ephemeral concept, really. Too abstract for most women to really identify with. I care about morality, but less about honor.
Alte
August 10, 2011
Honour means honesty, truth-telling, forthrightness.
As your wife wisely pointed out once, women are more expedient for pragmatic reasons.
Chels
August 10, 2011
I don’t think caring about one’s honor is prominent or a popular concept in Western societies, neither men or women seem to care about it (and it’s not because women can’t understand it). However, it is a big deal in the East, more collectivist societies.
Alte
August 10, 2011
Men don’t care about honor anymore because they have left society. Honor is part of the civilizational structure; a system of rules for behavior that builds the basis of law.
Black_Rose
August 10, 2011
“Honor is a bit of an ephemeral concept, really. Too abstract for most women to really identify with. I care about morality, but less about honor.”
So do you know what is honor, since you obvious pride yourself in being able to grasp “abstract concepts” that most women cannot understand.
When I think of honor, I think of this:
Zorro: Your honor has been insulted! This will not stand!
*next scene at an Opera house with Scarlet Pimpernel watching it in his private box*
Zorro: You have insulted my honor. I demand satisfaction, I challenge you to a duel. *slaps Scarlet Pimpernel with a glove* Do you accept or are you a coward?
Scarlet Pimpernel:I am a… COWARD!!! **runs away**
Alte
August 10, 2011
LOL, BR.
I can comprehend honor, yes, but I do not internalize it. I’m more focused on securing protection and provision, in the feminine fashion.
I do worry about my ethos here because of my attempts at evangelization. And, of course, I follow moral laws for religious reasons.
David Collard
August 10, 2011
Another big one with Australians is not backstabbing or snitching to the boss.
I am fairly sure that women have to be more expedient for cultural reasons. It may even be inborn.
Chels, honour matters to me. My standards have slipped a bit over the years, but I try not to be the first one to break the rules.
Chels
August 10, 2011
No, it’s not because they left society, it’s just because we found better ways to deal with problems or so called perceived problems (look at honor crimes, I’d say we’re better off without it).
Black_Rose
August 10, 2011
David C, I need a favor.
Could you e-mail this article:
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/mp201185a.html
Black_Rose
August 10, 2011
Could I write a guest article on this Alte, perhaps with David C reviewing it?
David Collard
August 10, 2011
Chels, it is nothing to do with “honour killings” or duels or whatever. You simply don’t understand.
BR, I doubt it. I don’t have full-text access to Nature.
Alte
August 10, 2011
Yes, you may.
I was just thinking: I’d rather be considered a slut than be an ugly woman. I don’t know if that is at all relevant to this thread. I can shrug off an accusation of sluttishness, but ugliness would make men disinclined to help me in any way. It seems unfair, really, as sluttishness is preventable, but a woman can’t always help ugliness. I’ve had numerous facial operations that made me ugly for weeks at a time, and I think back in horror. It’s not just that people don’t want to look at you, but that they actively work against you and attempt to exclude you.
As a man, honor is important. For a woman, your beauty is essentially your bread-and-butter.
Saul
August 10, 2011
David, the Catholic Church prefers fornication to MGTOW or ghosting.
Clarence
August 10, 2011
Black_Rose:
I shall look forward to your article.
Alte, I think I can speak for most men when I say that ugliness makes us much less likely to want to have sex or otherwise pair bond with you, and if we do not know you well, we are less sympathetic. But the men here know you and even if you were to get attacked by flesh eating bacteria tomorrow you’d still be Alte.
Clarence
August 10, 2011
Saul:
You might be right. The Catholic church wants families and it knows that adulterers can repent and convert. Those who truly ghost have no truck with family life and usually no truck with a church, though there are exceptions.
Alte
August 10, 2011
Yes, but that’s because you’re emotionally “remembering” the way looking at my face (or my imagined face) made you feel, not because the way I looked was irrelevant. Women benefit from this when they age in a marriage, for instance. The bond remains even if the physical trigger fades. This is one reason why women who delay marriage are being short-sighted. The younger and prettier you are when you get together, the more impressive his mental image of you will be, and the more emotional hold you will have over him when you aren’t pretty anymore.
Sorry to derail. I was actually going to write about this in an article, but it slipped out here, instead. I liked your article, but I don’t really have anything to add to it.
Saul, you’re just grandstanding now. Don’t be silly.
Alte
August 10, 2011
Well, the Catholic Church does require you to attend Mass. That’s a non-negotiable.
David Collard
August 10, 2011
What gets me about women, or at least the one I know, is that they will do almost anything. There are certain things I would literally rather die than do or say. My wife is not a bad woman, but she will do just about anything if the circumstances, or I, require it. Same with an earlier LTR.
David Collard
August 10, 2011
Bloody good point, Alte. My wife still looks pretty good for fifty, but it helps that in my mind she is still the lissome brunette I married.
Morticia
August 10, 2011
David- I was going to mention that it is a darn good thing most women have no pride for if they did not many men would get sex anymore considering how much of what is considered normal sexuality requires a degrading posture.
doggy style..oral sex..legs up in the air.. None of it is classy, but I think that is part of the allure. Men like to see women degrade themselves for their benefit. It makes them feel more manly.
David Collard
August 10, 2011
Exactly, Morticia. You get it. Absolutely true.
I must say you think a bit like a man. That is exactly why we men like those positions.
Black_Rose
August 10, 2011
“Despite the fact that no specific genetic variants have been robustly associated with human intelligence, apart perhaps for APOE at older ages, our results show for the first time that a substantial proportion (40–50%) of variation in human intelligence is associated with common SNPs (minor allele frequency > 0.01) that are in LD with causal variants.”
Someone posted that from the article, and the evidence seems tenuous at best. The p values, quoted in the abstract (0.028 and 0.009) seem too high and unimpressive. I’ve seen articles that reported SNPs related to height, diabetes, etc. that have values lower than 1.0 x 10-7, although those studies have a large sample. I just want to see what were the candidate SNPs in the set that allegedly accounted for 1% of the variance in general intelligence.
David Alexander
August 10, 2011
That is exactly why we men like those positions.
I thought it’s because it’s simply novel and different. I mean, it’s not like I want to degrade women for my own benefit.
David Collard
August 10, 2011
DA, they are expressions of dominance. And, in fairness to us men, women like offering themselves like that. I was only surprised that Morticia had that much insight.
terri
August 10, 2011
For a woman, your beauty is essentially your bread-and-butter.
Wow. Since I’m married, this probably shouldn’t make a big difference to me, but as an average looking chick I find it disconcerting. Clearly I *get it* in part. After all, I touched on it my post about feminism’s negative effects on women not as lovely as you, Alte (which would certainly include me).
I find it kind of odd for a Christian to think this way though..
I’ll definitely be looking forward to your further thoughts.
David Collard
August 10, 2011
Terri, average looking is good enough. Men find women attractive simply because they are women. Beauty in the real sense is not required.
Clarence
August 10, 2011
Alte:
You are being silly. I had no idea what you looked like whatsoever until your picture just now.
Sorry but your “personality” hooked me.
And as for “degrading” sexual position: b.s. There is no such thing. Yes, there are more or less male dominant ones, but mostly it’s novelty. A woman that cares for my sexual needs is a gem at least in that manner and shows me she can share. To think that I devalue that… well, I don’t know what to say.
David Collard
August 10, 2011
Yes, Alte has an interesting personality. So, in their own way, do Morticia, Black Rose and others. But appearance helps express personality.
Clarence, you may be a better man than me. With me, it is about exerting dominance and some positions are more conducive to that.
Learner
August 10, 2011
For a woman, your beauty is essentially your bread-and-butter
I think how beautiful a woman is will influence how much she thinks of beauty as her bread and butter. If you are average or below in the looks department you may have different expectations that are quite acceptable for you such that you don’t feel bereft for your lack of beauty. Or,perhaps really beautiful women just think their bread and butter is based in their beauty when maybe only part of it is. I am not denying that women are treated differently because of their looks (they are), but just that it isn’ t an all or nothing proposition. I would consider myself to be in the average or below category of beauty (I am 45 after all!) and have no trouble getting help from men when needed.
David Collard
August 10, 2011
Men like helping women. I would only refuse if a woman was unpleasant to me, and even then I might still help out of a sense of duty.
Morticia
August 10, 2011
I’ve always felt like my intelligence was more important than my beauty. I am also in the average or below category so I try to compensate by being interesting.
I think that allure can take you as far as beauty can in many cases. I know a few women who break all the rules when it comes to feminine beauty but because they have a particular allure they do very well with men.
David Collard
August 10, 2011
Morticia, I have known many women who are nothing special to look at but they have something about them that men find attractive. They are warm or cute or amusing. Sometimes a physical oddity can actually be interesting to men. My mother told me about a girl who had a gap between her front teeth that made her interesting. She had it fixed and lost her appeal.
Black_Rose
August 11, 2011
BTW, is there any advantage in being a human male over a female, or see anything that women envy men over? I, unlike the stereotypical feminist portrayed here, do not believe that women are oppressed, or should be making an equal amount of money as men.
I would rather be a male if I would experience this regularly.
It is the top of the 9th with two outs, and no one on-base. The score is 4-1, favoring the home team. The scoreboard reads Home R 3, H 7, E 0; Visiting R 1, H 3, E 1. The spectators have posted displays of Ks with 9 Ks lined up The count is 1-1, since I missed throwing an 0-1 75 mph curveball against a right-handed batter. I shake off the catcher who signals curveball, and agree to throw a high four-seam fastball for my 113th pitch. I place left my index and middle finger on the baseball with a four-seam grip. My right leg, moves up, and strides towards home plate, while sequentially turning my hips, and my left shoulder towards my target, my catcher’s mitt, which is placed just below the batter’s elbows, and releasing the ball from my left hand. 400 millseconds after release, the batter swings and makes contact with the ball, fouling it out of play. The scoreboard has a reading of 94 mph, impressive, but not extraordinary. I make a mental note that my last pitch was the seventh fastball that I’ve throw at that range; I hadn’t touched 95 tonight and my fastball usually sits around 90-93 mph. The catcher throws a new ball from the umpire, and after catching it, I briefly think about my next pitch before placing the ball in my glove while holding it with the two-seam grip. I shake off my catcher until he calls for a fastball low and inside. I throw it, and the ball hit the catcher’s mitt which is placed next to the batter’s knee. The pitch crosses lower insider corner the plate while the batter is rendered transfixed, expected the pitch to be a ball. The punches the air, signaling the pitch is a strike. The scoreboard reads 91 mph briefly, before flashing into a coruscating display congratulating the our team. While I was elated when I earned my 10th K, the strikeout victim walks to his bench dejected. My catcher runs out to embrace me for throwing a gem: a 10 K, 1 BB, 1 HR, 114 pitch complete game …
Of course, only a small proportion of males, even MLB pitcher’s experience this.
Morticia
August 11, 2011
DC- Like Lauren Hutton?
http://www.leninimports.com/lauren_hutton_gallery_17.jpg
David Collard
August 11, 2011
Black Rose, I like being a man. The existence of feminists implies that some women are unhappy about some aspects of being a woman. I read once that 20 per cent of women would prefer to be men, whereas only 5 per cent of men would prefer the opposite. Also, one reads odd things, like the throwaway remark in a woman’s magazine that women feel they missed out being born women.
However, none of my female relatives seems to mind, although my wife seems to suffer from a bit of penis envy at times. Maybe it was growing up with five brothers.
I wonder at the sacrificial nature of some women, but I have always assumed they didn’t notice or didn’t care. As I said earlier, women routinely do things I would never do, “for love or money”.
To answer your question, yes, there are physical and mental thrills that only men are likely to experience, but I have always assumed there are other, nice things about being female.
Black_Rose
August 11, 2011
“Sometimes a physical oddity can actually be interesting to men. ”
Ha ha… reminds me of that King of the Hill episode which had Bobby growing flowers. He mentioned wabi sabi.
David Collard
August 11, 2011
Morticia, not that particular woman. Perhaps I could find some “jolie laide” women as examples.
BR, I don’t know what wabi sabi is.
Chris
August 11, 2011
We do not have a functional society. In a functional society being a man of honour, providing for your family, leads to three rewards — the esteem, emotional and romantic (ahem) support from your wife, honor from your children (who give you security in your old age, and increased productivity, honour and respect from society.
In this society, marrying is a risk. Even if you marry within the church, the attitude that this is for but a while exists — and canon law (or church discipline does not help. Divorce leads to damage and alienation from your children, poverty, involuntary celibacy… and you are older, you have been hit by not only the ugly stick but you are no longer able to provide as you are forced to support the very woman who betrayed you.
In this society, the rational thing to do is be a drone. Minimise income. Avoid women… unless in a professional setting. Do not have romantic entanglements. Have hobbies. Travel. Do not own anything you cannot put on the back of a bicycle.
Now…. this society is perverse. I cannot do this, as I have two boys to raise, and I refuse to not be productive. In our society, I am a sheep being shorn — on a salary, accountable to external authorities, and with children. I can’ t go Galt.
But young men, or men after their children have grown, can. We are rewarding drones (or MGTOW) as a consequence of rewarding sluts.
David Collard
August 11, 2011
http://www.celebitchy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wenn2210146.jpg
http://i2.listal.com/image/1200184/500full.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QtfRarIMf1Q/TdK94nWh-tI/AAAAAAAAYFo/c9u5BkCWpkQ/s1600/040828_Bjork_.jpg
http://topnews.in/files/renee-zellweger22.jpg
http://hotfullmovies.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/christina_ricci.jpg
http://www.trophy-wife.net/image.axd?picture=2011%2F1%2Fhelena-bonham-carter-pic.jpg
http://media.photobucket.com/image/judy%20davis/stinkylulu/1992/08-JD-JudyDavis-HusbandsWives.jpg
Black_Rose
August 11, 2011
BOBBY: This one’s pretty.
HANK: Not if we go by the book. According to the checklist, this one’s perfect.
BOBBY: But I like how mine’s a little off-center. It’s got Wahbi-Sabi.
HANK: You can’t win an argument by making up words.
BOBBY: Wahbi-Sabi is an Eastern tradition, Dad. It’s celebrating the beauty in what’s flawed. Like the crack in the Liberty Bell or the mole on Cindy Crawford’s face.
HANK: The Liberty Bell is great. But come on, if it was in a competition with a bunch of other bells without cracks, it would lose.
BOBBY: But sometimes it’s the imperfections that make you love something even more. So what if this rose is a little short, a little wide? It’s got more personality than those other ones.
HANK: Uh-huh. But we’re out to win.
David Collard
August 11, 2011
I sent some links to jolie laide ladies, but they may have been caught in the filter.
I think DA has a point. Things are not so bad in Australia, with shared custody. But the coldly rational thing to do is not marry. Even I can see that. A series of pliable ladies would have made more sense.
Black_Rose
August 11, 2011
“Now…. this society is perverse. I cannot do this, as I have two boys to raise, and I refuse to not be productive. In our society, I am a sheep being shorn — on a salary, accountable to external authorities, and with children. I can’ t go Galt.”
So you want to do Galt and rebel against the system?
the cottage child
August 11, 2011
sorry, what are MGTOW?
David Alexander
August 11, 2011
In this society, the rational thing to do is be a drone. Minimise income. Avoid women… unless in a professional setting. Do not have romantic entanglements. Have hobbies. Travel. Do not own anything you cannot put on the back of a bicycle.
Even in a traditional society, I’d argue that it still the rational decision to make. Engaging in marriage and having children is simply one of the most irrational things one can do, and it makes far more sense to redirect the money, time, and resources that one devotes to family to one’s self. In lieu of minimizing income, I would argue that it’s best to maximize income, buy lots of stuff, save money, be thankful to God for one’s gifts, abilities, and skills, contribute to charity, and if one is religious, tithe. Going Galt seems silly, but simply avoiding romantic liabilities seems to be a sensible think, especially if one can supplant it with platonic friendships.
David Collard
August 11, 2011
BR, now I get what wabi sabi is. I think I did know once, but I had forgotten. It reminds me of Nietzsche on grasping truths tangentially.
Morticia, sorry I missed the point on Lauren Hutton. I see she has a gap in her front teeth. I don’t know what the girl looked like. She was a friend of my mother’s. But it is common to see girls with some minor oddity that makes them cuter. I once met a girl with one blue eye and one brown. It was fascinating. I am sure she found a husband without any trouble.
David Alexander
August 11, 2011
sorry, what are MGTOW?
Men Going Their Own Way
In other words, these are men who have withdrawn from all relationships with women and to some extent, society unless deemed to be necessary to their existance.
Black_Rose
August 11, 2011
I once met a girl with one blue eye and one brown. It was fascinating. I am sure she found a husband without any trouble.
- ha ha, reminds me of Max Scherzer. Vin Scully, as always, provides fascinating details on the personal lives of the players while they are at bat.
David Collard
August 11, 2011
DA, you do have a point. I think though that a wife provides you with company, assured company. And I like having housework done for me. Not only because I hate housework, being lazy and rather incompetent at such things, but I like the power over a particular woman. And, as I said, I enjoy the dominant role in sex very much.
I also like children, and think they are sweet. But mine have given me much worry, I am sorry to say. Still, I like children a lot.
Chris
August 11, 2011
Black Rose, No.
But I am solo. No relationship. I have the occ. coffee with women, but I am very, very cautious about even beginning to play the romantic game.
I have had one horrible divorce. My kids cannot afford, and my health cannot afford another one. (And the list is… intelligent, attractive (to me) sane and Godly) In reverse order.
I have no interest in having a “missionary” or “rescue” relationship. If this is a season for celibacy, when the boys leave home I will probably stop teaching and go to the third world, where my skills are needed.
David Alexander
August 11, 2011
I think though that a wife provides you with company
It’s funny, I tend to think that it’s overrated, but I’m an attention whore with a tendency to seek female attention. The problem is it’s relatively expensive company that you can’t really upgrade for a better model, and it’s not easy to get rid of it when you no longer want it, and it comes with so many other entanglements and responsibilities. Yes, you can have somebody else to do your housework and have sex with, but it seems far easier to deal without it. I could care less about power over a woman because that power requires maintaining her.
I also like children, and think they are sweet.
Kids are sweet, but I’m weary of raising children into the decline based world that Alte is predicting. Even without that, HBD destroyed my hope that my kids would be highly intelligent and become members of the social elite, so it kinda defeats part of the purpose of having them. Who wants to have kids that will grow up and do no better and potentially do worse?
David Collard
August 11, 2011
Children are what Aristotle called a good in themselves. In any case, they are cute and they love you and you can love them.
My sexuality is all tied up with dominance. Always has been. You can’t dominate and impress your hand.
Black_Rose
August 11, 2011
“HBD destroyed my hope that my kids would be highly intelligent and become members of the social elite, so it kinda defeats part of the purpose of having them. ”
Why because you are black, and that they regress towards the black mean, even if you are more intelligent than the average white person? Yes, HBD says that luck is against you. Maybe you have a better chance at raising a CC Sabathia or LeBron James, but while these two people are rich, they have no social influence or political power.
Black_Rose
August 11, 2011
It would kinda ironic if people who have an IQ of 130** are afraid of having children who would have an IQ of 110, while those with lower IQs have children without any inhibition.
** Makes you wonder if people value intelligence itself, or being relatively intelligence.
Black_Rose
August 11, 2011
*Children are what Aristotle called a good in themselves. In any case, they are cute and they love you and you can love them.*
Children grow up, they have to compete in the world. Certainly Western values wants to instill within them the ethos of “personal responsibility” so they can contribute in a competitive global economy; it is not like these children would be callow Peter Pans and Ash Ketchums; they will lose their innocence and face the “Bellum omnium contra omnes” of the global neoliberal economy.
David Alexander
August 11, 2011
In any case, they are cute and they love you and you can love them.
Yes, but one has to worry about their future, and one could argue that one has a responsibility to ensure that their children will have a safe and stable future with the opportunity to do better than their parents.
Always has been. You can’t dominate and impress your hand.
Who cares. I just want my orgasm and endorphin rush.
Why because you are black, and that they regress towards the black mean
That and the fear a world of increasing awareness of HBD would limit their opportunities and restrict their freedoms and potential for cultural exchange.
Black_Rose
August 11, 2011
David Alexander, it seems that you really don’t believe that “children are what Aristotle called a good in themselves.” Is that one reason you are not pro-life.
I posted this before David, tell me if there is anything that you disagree with:
I simply do not think that it is a great victory when the pro-life movement saves a few lives from the decision of a pregnant mother to terminate her pregnancy. To me, there is no triumph in that victory because after that, it would mean that the newborn has to face the prospects of life. In many cases, this would mean the newborn would be raised in material deprivation and face further adversity. In some cases, a few of these newborns would overcome that situation through luck, either through a combination of inheriting a socially valuable genotype that endows them with profound intellectual or athletic talent and other coincidences such as winning the lottery. But it is obvious that not all newborns would be that lucky, and the prospects for many is a grim and brutal life with few meliorative factors.
This is not a moral prescription requiring that a fetus should be aborted; I merely said that saving the life of a fetus should not be considered a triumphant moral victory. Saving the life of a fetus, to me, does not seem to be an indicative of progress, since there would be potential difficulties that the child would encounter as it matures.
Pro-life activists typically emphasize the positive outcomes of the potential of the lives that would be saved as a consequence of their pro-life activism while ignoring the negative outcomes. Besides limited support for mothers after their baby is born, they do not seem to have any concern for mitigating any negative outcomes that would inevitably occur throughout the lives of the infants as they mature. As one could see, the struggle does not end when the fetus is carried to term, resulting in a successful pregnancy, but it is merely the beginning.
The probability distribution of outcomes of an individual life saved through pro-life activism or anti-abortion policies has large variance. For example, on the positive tail end of this distribution, it is possible that an infant saved by pro-life activism today would throw a complete game shutout in the first game of the 2035 World Series and have a multimillion dollar contract. A more probable outcome on the negative side would be that the infant would not have the intellectual capacity to complete secondary education and as a consequence that person would be unable to acquire the human capital that is valued in the job market. That person would need the perpetual assistance of benefactors, such as private charities, the state, or some combination of the two, beyond the services provide by a crisis pregnancy center in order to provide the material and financial resources to make ends meet. He/she would not seem to have any prospects for a decent life since he/she would likely be mired in poverty trapped in a world of despair and despondency while suffering the humiliating indignity of receiving private charity for subsistence.
I most certainly do not recommend using the financial statements of pregnant women or their IQs to render a judgment whether her fetus should be carried to term or aborted. I only mentioned the heritability of intelligence not to recommend eugenic policies, but to point out that the outcomes of the infants saved from abortion are not entirely within the volition of the children themselves or their parents. Those who are the unlucky recipients of a disadvantageous genetic endowment would be unable to surmount adversity simply because they lack the capacity regardless of the opportunities presented to them or the amount of determination they possess.
The first part of a potential remedy is to acknowledge that it is inevitable that some would suffer difficult conditions and adversity that would prevent them from living dignified lives. Once the problem has been acknowledge, measures and policies can be enacted to attenuate and reduce the negative variance of the possible outcomes. The nature of this suggestion is inherently egalitarian because reducing the negative variance of outcomes would mean reducing overall variance, ceteris paribus, hence a more equal distribution of outcomes. If the means for accomplishing this would including reducing the positive variance through redistribution, then it would further reduce the variance in outcomes. The pro-life movement does not take this into consideration at all.
David Collard
August 11, 2011
We live in Australia, a more hopeful country. Of course I worry about my children’s future. But not excessively. No man knows what the future will bring and I think it is the Christian way to be optimistic. Besides, this is not the only world. We have Heaven to aspire to.
Alte
August 11, 2011
Since I’m married, this probably shouldn’t make a big difference to me, but as an average looking chick I find it disconcerting.
Average looking is good enough. Even “slightly unattractive” is good enough. But if you think men will be lining up to protect and provide for someone hideous — no, they won’t. Women aren’t chasing after dwarfs either, are they?
This has nothing to do with religion, but with our natural inclinations, and our desire for successful offspring (men’s height and women’s beauty being indicators of genetic fitness). Religious beliefs about charity and tribal solidarity can help men to override those inclinations, but they are still there. Also, resources are simply limited, so we all prioritize. The resources are never evenly dispersed — whether they be women’s “favors” or men’s “help”, someone will always end up with more than others. This is natural selection at work, and there’s not much anyone can do about it. God didn’t design life to be fair, after all.
True ugliness is rather debilitating, really. I’ve been there, and it’s awful. People can be cruel. There’s actually a movement underway to have “ugliness” listed as a disability for legal purposes. I think that’s silly, but I can understand their point. Even for men, being ugly makes your life very hard.
I suppose I have an unusual view of this because I’m been both ugly and attractive, and because my numerous surgeries mean that I have a strange, detached opinion about my own face. I’ve heard that this is typical for women who have had a lot of plastic surgery. Also, I hit puberty late, so I was the “flat-chested girl” for a long time. This made me acutely aware of how much importance breast-size has for men (all protestations to the contrary). I feel like my own scientific experiment sometimes. LOL The single most important feature to attractiveness seems to be eyes, though.
Yes, Alte has an interesting personality. So, in their own way, do Morticia, Black Rose and others. But appearance helps express personality.
This. You can tell a lot about someone’s appearance by their personality. If nothing else, “being interesting” is highly correlated with intelligence, and intelligence is correlated with physical attractiveness. That doesn’t mean that all intelligent women are attractive, but that they are rarely truly ugly.
Alte
August 11, 2011
Sorry but your “personality” hooked me.
Well, alright. I don’t think my personality is particularly attractive, just fascinating like a tarantula. I’m a bit of a robot, really.
Might I suggest that — IRL — no one cares to find out what an ugly woman’s personality is like. Men are highly visual, and they’re noticeably bothered by looking at ugly women. They’ll avoid looking at them or talking to them. I see it all the time, and I’ve experienced it myself.
I suppose it’s a bit strange for me to empathize with ugly women, but I’ve been there. Most pretty women have always been pretty, so they see ugly women as a form of subhuman that they really don’t even notice (same as men do). They mostly notice women who are as pretty or prettier than they are, as they are ambitious and focused on their sexual competition.
I know pretty women who are just awful, complete nightmares, and everyone likes them anyway and everyone forgives them for everything. It’s nauseating, but life isn’t fair and we all have to deal with that.
Clarence
August 11, 2011
Alte:
I normally wouldn’t argue with you about this, but I do think you over exaggerate. Do you remember my link to Roissy’s “Women from 1 to 10″ post? Do you know how many of those ten women were so repulsive that I wouldn’t consider them as friends? 1 – cigstache. Actively repulsive. Now there were two others that would never get me in bed with them, but they weren’t so ugly as to be repulsive to talk to or possibly care about. Intense fat, double chin – boner killer, for instance. But without other disgusting habits or features, once again, perfectly fine and human to me. In short, a girl has to be so ugly as to not just not excite me sexually but REPULSE me with clothes on. So unless you were a female version of the elephant man, you probably couldn’t “bed” most of those men, but you probably would have been ok as “just friends”.
Alte
August 11, 2011
I was that repulsive, Clarence. I was in a serious car accident, I was wearing an eye patch (an eye I nearly completely lost), my face was scratched up, my cheeks were blown out to twice their normal size from the swelling, and my jaw was wired shut. I walked around like that for weeks. I tried to go back to school after the worst of it was over, and I got harassed so horribly that I refused to return until I was fully recovered.
It was traumatic, and it changed my personality. For the better, I hope. It has, at least, left me acutely aware of how much superficial things matter to most people, even in day-to-day life. It took a lot of courage for me to even leave the house. Worse than the time I spent in a wheelchair, even.
Clarence
August 11, 2011
Well, Alte, I’m glad you survived.
Sorry you had to go through so much, but apparently in your case at least, the Plastic surgery took.
Saul
August 11, 2011
Clarence, I think you’re right. Let’s not forget that fornication and adultery sometimes produces babies which can be used to force the formation of families. The Catholic Church and other churches prefer this to ghosts who are reminder that the church has failed to fight marriage 2.0 and the culture of pervasive divorce that exists in the church (just like it exists outside the church) like they were supposed to.
I find this similar to the (American) Catholic Church’s support of illegal immigration. Rather than deal with real problems both here and in Mexico that the Catholic Church should have been helping to solve, the Catholic Church has been using support illegal immigration to pretend those problems don’t exist.
Alte
August 11, 2011
I had excellent surgeons; they had just arrived back from reconstructing faces in a war zone, so I was easy work for them. I was prettier afterward than before. The orthodontist actually admitted that he’d widened my top lip “while he was in there”, as it was too thin for my face. I was like… uh… thanks. How about a boob job and some lipo “while you’re in there”. LOL
Black_Rose
August 11, 2011
“This. You can tell a lot about someone’s appearance by their personality. If nothing else, “being interesting” is highly correlated with intelligence, and intelligence is correlated with physical attractiveness. That doesn’t mean that all intelligent women are attractive, but that they are rarely truly ugly.”
I am flat-chested for a woman, and don’ possess a overly curvy body, although I have a trim frame. Most people are not surprised that I have a tomboyish, child-like personality since I am largely indifferent to the notion of “personal responsibility”, possess a voracious appetite for information, and naive to understanding the many facets of male sexual behavior on a practical level (although my theoretical understanding is satisfactory). I do not consider my child-like behavior as a particular liability, and I figure that it makes me cute. (The tomboyish aspect is also not surprising because I stated that I would happily give up my femininity if I am able to be a good MLB starting pitcher who can throw multiple complete games in a season; other than that, I see no compelling reason to be a man.) I am not sexually promiscuous nor aware of any male status hierarchies. Personally, I say inane things sometimes; this is endearing to some people: I am more like a Brian Wilson (who said he’s “certified ninja”) instead of a Ralph Wiggum in this respect.** After reading his Wikipedia article, I didn’t know Wilson was a “born-again Christian”.
If I were a male, I would be like Tim Lincecum personality-wise; I wish I had his arm too. He seems to act immature and child-like stoner. Perhaps making millions performing an athletic endeavor (except football) allows one to stay immature.
“God didn’t design life to be fair, after all.”
Huh.
I actually have a female friend who I consider a confidant, and a big sister (I am an only child) as she is smarter, although I have a better memory, and acts more feminine than I do . Last year, when I was seriously considering being a Catholic, I was discussing my current theological views, as I currently had a lukewarm faith. She, like myself, is an agnostic/ weak atheist, and she noticed that I have not found an intellectually satisfactory resolution to the theodicy (problem of evil). She told me initially that me that she had no objections if I acquired faith in a personal god because she thought it would imbibe me with hope and optimism, and make me less nihilistic, even though religious faith (according to her) stands on an intellectually bankrupt edifice. She was willing to support me if I become a Catholic if it improved my quality of life and didn’t compromise my sanity, and reassured me that religious faith does not make one unintelligent. However, she noticed that I was dissatisfied with the Christian God when I told her that I stopped praying (intercessory prayer) because I reasoned that my prayer would have little/ if any positive impact on the external world or on the welfare of other humans. She then deduced there was discord in my mind (and possibly anger directed towards the Christian God) because I was unable to reconcile a belief in a benevolent God who tolerated the existence of evil since that would mean that God is either an apathetic or impotent to intervene meaningfully world, or that he intervenes capriciously in select scenarios that are ultimately insignificant from a global perspective. Although she never expressed any hostility towards organized religious, she recommended me to abandon any religious faith for my own psychological welfare as she believed that it would be detrimental if one harbored anger towards “fictitious entity” while compromising my intellectual probity as a naturalistic rational empiricist. I then asked her, while raising my voice, to engage in a debate on the existence of the Christian God, but she calmly refused saying that I am intellectually capable and independent enough to evaluate the issue myself, and that she would not derive any pleasure from eviscerating futile apologetic arguments, especially when they are being presented by a friend.
This conversation occurred November, and she then brought up the time when we were watching the first game of the 2011 NLDS (Giants vs. Braves). (I was watching it at her house since it was on TBS and I didn’t have cable; she is not a fan of baseball or any team, but she would allow me to watch it after I explained that I only watch for the opportunity to witness memorable accomplishment (an extra-inning walk off home run; a complete-game shutout) in a high-stakes environment, the postseason; I had little interest in the actual outcome of the game.) She noticed that during the early innings of the game, I was just a detached observer, except during that string where #55 struck out 6 consecutive batters in the first-third inning. However, during the top of the 8th and 9th innings, I was titivated and enthralled (as I was standing instead of sitting on the sofa) when #55 got a two strike count, anticipating the next pitch coming from his 5’11″ frame; when a Braves hitter struck out swinging, I was clapping saying “that’s [number of strikeouts]th K”! After she reminded me of this, she asked how was this different from the feelings of ecstasy and happiness from allegedly feeling God’s presence during prayer or attending Mass. I responded that I felt “loved” during these moments and mentioned that I no longer felt God’s loving embrace, but her retort was that I currently believe that God had abandoned the world. She concluded it is better to be an agnostic than to believe in the existence of an aloof God. She jokingly said that baseball was the perfect religion for me since it made me happy when I watch the deities hurling lightning-bolts from a 10 inch hill, and I didn’t have any feelings of resentment towards the deities.(She actually called pitchers “deities”, and I laughed). In contrast to watching baseball games, the Christian faith seemed to have a negative impact on me, since it didn’t make me happier (it made me less happy), or made me a moral and benevolent person, saying that I was already moral and benevolent without religion.
During this conversation, she never presented any evidence against the existence of God, and only brief mentioned the putative absence of evidence; she was only concerned with its impact on my life.
—-
“Shouting the signal for the start, we’ll do what our souls want
and vault over our cramped and mediocre lives.
We’ll make a dash and obtain every bit of our brilliant futures.
Embracing the bonds we so believe in, we’ll race toward tomorrow
START no aizu sakebe kokoro motomeru mama
kyuukutsu de hampana nijijyou wa tobikoeteyaru
DASH shite kagayaku mirai zambu te ni iererusa
shinjiteru kizuna o idaite kaketeyuku ashita e
David Collard
August 11, 2011
The women at my 12:48 am comment are my suggestions for “jolie laide” ladies. Women who are cute but odd-looking, as discussed.