The Family is Most Important, Part 1: Sluts Should Be Shamed · 5:31pm Dec 4th, 2020
The family is the backbone of our entire society, and right now, it has osteoporosis. There are so many attacks against the traditional family and the values of sex and responsibilities that the rising generation is is trouble. Millions of children grow up without fathers, being raised to believe that men are worthless or that women should be sexually free, and you can change their gender or come out of the closet at age 8 or lower. Indoctrinating children with this is not only foolish, it’s dangerous, and the ramifications will lead to catastrophe.
Over the course of the next few blogs, I’ll go over many different ways the callous Left likes to use to destroy the family structure and ruin children. The dissolution of the family will lead to the calamities and destructions prophesied long ago. At the very least, I don’t want to be around when that happens, so I will explain to divided minds the reasons why the leftist frame of reference is entirely wrong.
And it can all be traced back to feminism. Feminists like to spout a rhetoric that it’s okay to be called a slut--nay, even encouraged! And if not, then you’re slut-shaming! Think of all the headlines you’ve read accusing men of being misogynistic jerks and flaunting their fake crown of being a slut. I cannot believe that our culture has become so flooded with hedonism and degeneracy that I have to thoroughly explain what used to be common knowledge.
And get this--I won’t even use a religious explanation! I will break down the science of why being a slut is ineffective and undesirable, and why the traditional male-female couple is ultimately best. I hope this one gets around. It’s been a while since I’ve had angry leftists arguing with me, and I kinda miss it.
Feminism is rooted in Marxist and Freudian theory. They took the idea of class warfare and integrated that into a relationship between the sexes. It reiterated the idea of false consciousness, which was an idea they got from the Marxists. Basically, they would say, “Hey! You’re oppressed!” And the other woman’s just like, “What? No, I’m not oppressed.” “Isn’t that what they would want you to think if they were oppressing you?” It’s affirmative either way. You either agree that you’re being oppressed, or you disagree, but the only reason you disagree is because you don’t know you’re being oppressed.
They kept women from seeing their own oppression as a political condition, which creates a false illusion that a woman’s relationship with her man is a matter of interplay between two unique personalities that can be worked out individually, but in reality, they’re class conflicts that must be solved collectively. Not husband vs wife, but men vs women. It perpetuated into full-scale identity politics which we all see now as races, genders, ethnicities, religions, sexuaities, etc…
In 1970, Germaine Greer released a very influential book called The Female Eunuch. In it, she writes, “Women have somehow been separated from their libido, from their faculty of desire, from their sexuality. They’ve become suspicious about it. Like beasts, for example, who are castrated in farming in order to serve their master’s ulterior motives--to be fattened or made docile--women have been cut off from their capacity for action.” So according to her, female sexuality is on the same page as farm animals.
She believed that women will never be free until their libidos are recognized as separate entities. She also described herself as an Anarcho-Communist and accepted the Freudian belief that all societal problems are rooted in the repression of sexual desires. She argued that the entire system of marriage was a conspiracy to keep women down, ignoring the fact that men are competing to keep other men down in order to become as successful as possible to attract the highest-value woman they can.
That being said, she admitted that she hadn’t been fully emancipated yet because she still fantasized about physically large and powerful men forcing kisses on her. But then she blamed that on romance literature, as if romance literature exists to regulate female desires, instead of vice versa. She wrote that women were going to have to be “brave enough” to leave their husbands and children in the name of female empowerment! Yeah, guess what, their kids are worse off in every conceivable way! “Oh, but don’t you understand? I’m empowered now! I’m depressed, but trust me, I love how empowered I am.”
Her prescriptions for women’s happiness were sexual experimentation, aggressiveness, and radical independence. These types saw sexual repression as a hangup that was designed by men to oppress women, while at the same time, their male counterparts saw them as inconvenient societal barriers to commitment-free sex. This is the biggest joke in the history of male-female relationships. Feminists actually managed to convince generations of women that engaging in casual sex is empowering for women.
We’ll now dive into evolutionary psychology--and feminists hate evolutionary psychology, because it effectively acts as the antithesis to feminism, cutting through the “It’s social constructs!” with “Hm, interesting, but we have literally hundreds of studies on human nature that we can successfully replicate on many different cultures throughout the world, so yeah.”
Men have a substantially higher sex drive than women. The part of the male human brain that regulates sexual urges is about two and a half times larger than the corresponding section of a female’s brain. If men and women had the same level of sexual desire, prostitution wouldn’t exist and Playgirl would have more than 3,000 subscriptions, half of which are gay men. Men are also more able to walk away from a casual sexual encounter than women. Why? Because sex is not just physical. The Sexual Revolution set out to seperate sex from intimacy and responsibility, but women still secrete more oxytocin during sex than men, also known as the bonding hormone. Why would women secrete more of this than men? Because if she becomes pregnant with that man’s child, she is going to find a bad time finding another man to raise that child, since the child does not belong to him. So she bonds to the man who impregnated her in the first place. We’ve had contraceptives for a few generations now, but these systems are 5 million years old and are not going anywhere.
Men also have an incentive to commit to one woman because it’s the best way they can ensure their paternity. But on the other hand, due to that aforementioned sex drive, they also have an incentive to impregnate as many women as they can so they can spread their gene pool to its furthest extent. Naturally, women don’t like this, because if a man has many children with multiple women, less of his resources are going to her, since he’s inherited all these other responsibilities. So marriage, long-term mating and connection, provided a solution to the problems of ancestral men who weren’t sure of the ovulation cycles of ancestral women. Men who married would benefit reproductively relative to other men by substantially increasing their probability of paternity through repeated sex with one woman during her ovulation cycle.
Marriage provides the opportunity to ensure fidelity through the agreement of the partners, family members, and the society around it. The Sexual Revolution has had no effect on the fact that most men consider sexual loyalty the most desirable trait in women and sexual unfaithfulness as the least desirable trait. Men who were not as concerned about their partner’s fidelity were less likely to ensure their paternity. And the greatest likelihood of a partner’s faithfulness is the number of previous sexual partners they’ve had. This is why chastity is a desired characteristic, and why women have a desire to preserve their virginity.
When women employ coyness into their mating strategy, it acts as a litmus test for men. Men, regardless of their mating strategy, be it short-term or long-term, want sex. So by withholding access to sex, women can assess the level of committment the man has to her. If he only wanted her for a casual encounter, he’d be inclined to leave because he’s potentially missing opportunities with women that might give it up easier. Also, since chastity is a desired characteristic by men, if a woman preserves her virginity, she’ll allow herself to have a competitive advantage over women that did not preserve them in the race to secure a man with high value.
Why is chastity important to men? Because when a man desires sex, and he gets it without much struggle, he realizes, “If it wasn’t that hard for me, it won’t be that hard for someone else.” Progressives dismiss this as the fragile male ego when in reality, ancestral men who weren’t as concerned about chastity and fidelity often are cuckolded, resulting in the dying off of their genetics. This is why slut-shaming exists.
Here’s something to consider: women hate sluts more than men do. This is because women have a monopoly on the value of sex, and when other women are willing to engage in it for a lower cost, it makes it a lot harder for women to leverage commitment in exchange for prolonged sexual access. That’s why, when men and women engage in rival degradation tactics, women will often tell a man she is interested in that another woman is loose. This is often effective because men who are employing a long-term mating strategy don’t want to be involved with a loose woman. That being said, if the woman here fails to evaluate the strategy and he’s employing a short-term strategy, she will make the other woman more attractive in his eyes because she described her as more sexually available.
Studies have been shown on how men and women rate attractiveness based on clothing. Men describe women who are wearing more revealing clothing as more attractive than women wearing less revealing clothing. But women describe men who wear more revealing clothing as less attractive. Why is that? It signals a short-term mating strategy. It signals that men are likely more interested in sex. Talk about slut-shaming, because women associate more revealing clothing with promiscuity and a short-term mating strategy. (So yes, feminists, we can reasonably conclude that when women dress provocatively, they’re doing so for male attention.) Meanwhile, men who were seeking a long-term mating strategy regarded women wearing less revealing clothing as more attractive.
So women are more likely to enjoy sex when it’s within the context of a committed relationship. With men, it doesn’t make that big a difference. This is likely why women are more likely to have regrets of sexual permission, which means they wish they had less sexual partners, while men are more likely to have regrets of sexual omission, which means they wish that they had more sexual partners.
Finally, feminists also like to say, “Women have to act unintelligent because men need to feel smart!” And that’s not accurate either. When women employ the ditzy, naive stereotype, they appear vulnerable for short-term mating strategies. The more vulnerable they are, the greater number of men will approach her, which means in your selection, you’ll have a higher chance of selecting a high-value man.
So what’s the logical conclusion of a cultural narrative that thinks male-female relationships oppress women, that not engaging in prostitution is oppressive to women? Probably a lowering of moral standards, a rise in infidelity and divorce, and a lessening respect of men by women, and vice versa. Are we seeing this trend now? You tell me.
Anyone can be a prostitute. But just because anyone can doesn’t mean that anyone should. It’s the lowest form of work imaginable. It’s born from desperation, whether it’s for attention or for money, or whatever. By becoming a prostitute, you are giving up your agency to another person to do as he wishes, and this is nothing but negative. That’s why the sex work industry is plagued with mental illness and substance abuse. Some of you might say those were mostly there before, and you’d be right on most accounts, but sex work makes it worse. Name one example of a sex worker whose drug usage improved.
What’s worse, it makes sex into something transactional, instead of what it actually is, which is a bond between man and woman and the process by which you create life. This once intimate, sacred relationship is now bought and sold, like a birthright and a bowl of soup. And it diminishes human beings, making them out to be nothing more than an object. All of these things diminish the human capacity for flourishing, and there is only one word for such a thing: evil. For every pasty, pale-skinned, average teenage girl with an Onlyfans screaming how sex work is real work on Twitter, there’s a young girl being trafficked and abused. To anyone who promotes this, you are the problem here. You are beneath mosquitos. How does it feel to have no fulfilment in your sexual relations?
This isn’t about letting men or women do whatever they want. This is about highlighting a brighter path to follow. But if anyone says you should not do this, the response is, “You want to control women’s bodies!” (And then they go and let other people control their bodies)
If you listen to sex workers who rationalize this way of life, they’ll say, “It’s empowering because they make me feel pretty. They tell me they like my company.” Hate to break it to you, but they don’t give a crap about you. You’re disposable and replaceable. You’re like a napkin. You're like the last slice on a loaf of bread. Everyone touches you, but no one wants you. Like a doorknob, you absolute doorknob! And what do you mean, empowered? Being empowered just means being able to choose, to have control over yourself. And you don’t even have that. We know that the overwhelming majority of women who get involved in this industry have a history of abuse, trauma, mental illness, or similar factors. They’re trying to get around that they were either coerced into doing it--”Now that the damage is done, I’m happy about it! Now I’m choosing to do it! So I’m actually empowered!”--or they’re relying on their bad past for an excuse: “I was sexually abused throughout my life and someone else used my body for their own desire. But this time, I’m letting it happen! I’m choosing to let people use me this time, so I’m empowered! If you can use me, I can use you!” The problem is, in order for you to “use them” you’re giving up your literal body, and they’re giving up, what, some cash? Who cares about cash? In order for you to theoretically use them, you’re playing yourself by giving up something that will affect you in the long run far more than what they are giving up.
“Oh, but I don’t care! This doesn’t affect me! This is their choice!” How about this: if your mother, your sister, or your daughter is selling her body to who-knows-how-many people, you’d be upset and concerned. Any real man would be. And living in a culture that propagates it, who’s to say it won’t be your daughter someday? Think of how sex work is advertised to young women in, like, Teen Vogue: “Oh, you can make thousands of dollars a day! Buy the new iPhone! Pay off your student loans with nudes!” This is a selfish, shameless industry. At the end of the day, you won’t matter to them; you’ll just be replaced once you get too old or disease-ridden or pregnant or deflated by plastic surgery. There’s a better future than this. Literally any other future would be better for you than this.
Progressives have broken us up by race, gender, sexuality, and religion. They’ve sold us on the idea that we’re all competing for the ability to oppress one another. The problem is, since every culture has a different understanding of what right and wrong are, it wouldn’t be fair to judge someone relative to your standard of morality if they come from a different background. So what do you do? Since virtue is no longer regarded as what is right or wrong, since neither of those things are objective anymore because morality is relative, the only way that you can be virtuous is to be tolerant of everyone else’s beliefs and behaviors. This is why one of the worst things someone can be in the current climate is judgemental. “Oh, you’re so judgemental! Stop judging me!”
There’s an important distinction to be made in regards to judging. We should not judge people. I shouldn’t point at someone and say, “You are a bad person.” That’s not my job to do. With that said, we must judge actions if we are to maintain civilization. “It isn’t good to cheat on your partner.” “Nyehh, don’t be judgemental!” That’s not the same thing as making an assertion of someone’s value. “Sexuality is natural!” Yeah, but so is violence. So is appetite. We still regulate those things to some degree so we aren’t maiming each other in the streets over a small disagreement, or vacuuming up food into your mouth. (With the exception of the Fat Acceptance Movement) If we don’t make judgements about what is right for us, eventually everything will become acceptable, and society will collapse.
Had you left politics out of this post, it would have been really good. But of course you just have to politicize it and demonize the left. Leave politics out of things, it will make you more credible.
You may want to look back at some of your prior blog posts and practice what you preach. In the one about "weaker men" that was full of hypocrisy on your part. All you did was judge, judge, judge.
Bro, this is extremely politically charged and completely invalidates you, even if they are true, which I’m not saying they are or are not a problem, it kinda just makes you look biased because you keep trying to demonize a group of people
I might have thought about these arguments, but the moment you started pointing fingers at the left because “it’s how they are”, I lost interest
5409675
I said the characteristics of weak men typically include those five things. I was speaking the truth when I said weak men indulge in gluttony, or self-indulgence, or simping, or too much time online. It's one thing if you know it's wrong for you and you're struggling against it. That is indicative of a strong man. It's another thing when you deny the immorality of those activities entirely and wallow gleefully in your own sin. Judging actions is imperative for human flourishing.
First off, regardless of politics, it's still really good. Second of all, it's impossible to bring this subject up without talking about those who support it and why they do so. That just so happens to be feminism and progressivism, two things I vehemently disagree with. Third, what do you mean, credible? Just because I have a bias towards the right and against evil doesn't mean my information isn't credible. It's simply coming from a conservative perspective. I'm different from CNN and the other big-business conglomerates. I'm the Credible Hulk. What do you want me to be, emotionless in delivering information?
5409697
Would you say the same thing about major news sources? Why am I the only one that should apologize for having an opinion? I don't know how else I can say this, but if you want a bipartisan man, you won't find it here.
Do you have any proof that these prophecies are genuine, and can you provide a metric for being able to objectively determine whether such "calamities and destructions" are actually the fullfilment of said prophecies, and not simply the result of totally unrelated causes?
Well, sorry to disappoint, but hopefully you don't mind a response from a skeptical, critical-thinking centrist.
Except this is basically what Christians do when they convert people. You can't really get people to come to Jesus for salvation unless you can convince them they have an imaginary sin problem that they need to be saved from. Now, if you could actually provide objective evidence that there is actually such a thing as sin, and that people need to be saved from it, it would be a different story. But as far as I'm concerned, you're applying a double standard here.
I think you missed the point. Greer wasn't equating women with animals, but rather arguing that they are treated in a similar manner by men. And when I look at male-female relationships in religious fundamentalist communities, I can't help but see that she had a point. Sure, fundamentalist men don't treat their wives like animals per se, but they do treat women as second-class human beings in many ways.
While I disagree with her on both accounts, I think we should be careful not to underestimate how many problems actually are caused by sexual repression. If said repression was a solution, rather than a problem, then we wouldn't hear about sex abuse in the Catholic church and other Christian circles as often as we do. Something about the "biblical" approach to sexuality obviously isn't really working.
So are you actually going to provide concrete support for your broad brush treatment of feminism as a whole, or are you just cherry-picking one extreme feminist and pretending that her views can be taken as representative of the entire movement?
I believe this was generally true a long time ago--like in Old Testament times, when men weren't forbidden from having multiple wives and concubines, but any woman who had sex with more than one man was deemed an adulteress and was to be put to death. And modern traditionalist views about sexuality and gender roles are a remnant of that, even if they aren't as extreme and are no longer embraced or enforced for the same reasons they once were.
And that shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, because the idea that someone can live their life the way they want to without being pressured into having a family they don't want to have actually is empowering, contrary to what religious traditionalists preach.
And I would think you would hate it as well, because it shows us that a god concept is wholly unnecessary for explaining anything about human psychology, including religion and alleged religious experiences.
But besides this, there is nothing contradictory between evolutionary psychology and the idea of social constructs. On the contrary, evolutionary psychology explains why social constructs are created. But that shouldn't be taken as a reason to dogmatically uphold social constructs, as if evolution were some sort of personal supernatural entity that holds us accountable to how it has designed us (the word "designed" being used in a very loose sense, of course).
Okay, so evolution has physically and psychologically equipped us to be able to effectively propagate our species. But what if not everyone wants to reproduce? Why should they be expected to want to do so? What justification do you have, apart from your religious views, for claiming that it is immoral for someone to use sex for pleasure rather than procreation? Evolution is an impersonal phenomenon that imposes no such moral obligations. Why is procreation more important than ensuring that all human beings are treated equitably, which includes allowing them to do what makes them happy so long as they are not hurting others? (And I mean actually hurting others, not the imaginary "spiritual" consequences of "sin.")
You seem convinced that upholding the traditional views regarding sexuality will prevent abuse, despite the fact that sex abuse is disturbingly common in communities that dogmatically preach those traditionalist views. I firmly believe that if prostitution involving legal-age adults was legalized and regulated, there would be a dramatic decrease in sex trafficking.
This honestly sounds like projection to me. Whenever I hear/read things like this, they tend to come from people who have been indoctrinated to believe that extramarital sex is wrong. Sure, there are plenty of promiscuous people who feel unfulfilled, but there are also plenty who don't.
5409723
No believe me, I think the news stations are retarded too, the fact that we have labels such as left wing and right wing is retarded, do you understand how many of our problems could be solved if we found a way to fix them instead of arguing on how to fix them because you don’t want to listen to what the other side says
5409723
Do you understand how much better we would be if we didn’t have Democrats and republicans and just have a government that could do what it was fucking supposed to do in the first place
5409729
It seems like you have a real big problem with Christianity, and not with the points I made. Most of what you're saying is not actually a rebuttal of my arguments, but rather, "Well, Israelites four thousand years ago did comparable things, so you're a hypocrite!" You think I don't know about that? You think I don't have a problem with people who aren't living the way Christ intended them to, despite his instruction? Just because Christians have become bad at being Christian doesn't mean Christianity is inherently evil.
The science in all of this moralization is decades old and has been refuted already.
And while I agree that unfettered promiscuity, and infidelity are potentially disastrous to the health and psyche of human beings I also think that all of those ills can eventually all be treated through physical medicine and psychology eventually. The availability of this medicine and treatment should be available to all that need it.
People need second chances. And one can engage in ethical promiscuity (no going after married or people already in a relationship, and that you are fully honest that you are only looking for a short relationship or only a brief sexual encounter) as long as you are very careful and check their genitals and themselves for std's.
While I am more of a proponent of masturbation untill you find someone that you have fallen in love with to actually do the deed. I also am aware that not everyone has the capacity to be in a monogamous relationship. Some people are incapable of loyalty because of abnormally high libidos.
But outside of rapists and sociopaths I believe that there are people that can be redeemed and that having an inability to commit is a fixable problem.
There were former courtesans and playboys that managed to get their act together and become decent parents.
And also this entire moralizing tirade may only apply to working and middle class people.
For centuries Christian Kings and Queens as well as Nobles and all sorts and other extremely wealthy people throughout history where promiscuous as all hell and still preached that moralizing hogwash and did everything under the sun to the point of nauseam.
I am saying this being a 28 year old virgin. One that has trauma from bullying and a neglectful hypocrite "Christian" mother.
One girl in middle school tried to force a kiss from me while a ton of students barricaded me, I fought my way out due to panic. Another girl in an individualized High School advanced program caressed my thighs and because of my lifetime of being subjected to school bullying and dealing with the reality that my mother was a pathological liar and arranged to have the house burned down in an attempt to kill dad and get everything in the divorce I rejected her. I regret that despite that girl being three years older than me at the time.
Then in college In was rejected. And at some time later I was rejected again at 21.
Truth be told I have every reason to be seen and be a someone that would buy into this but I do not.
Because I have met people that are or where promiscuous and have been good friends to me.
Ah yes, of course. The range of acceptable behaviour is within this small gendered box. The entire society will crumble should anyone try to get outside of it. This is how the world works and has always worked too. No need to give people the freedom to individually chose what works best for them. We need to force them to fit the stereotypes that makes us most comfortable. This is how we maximise happiness by making the world fit our conception of it instead of trying to understand people and learning.
5409756
Sure, but it doesn't give you an excuse for indulging in prostitution in the first place. Besides, if the person does not want to change, they won't, and very little will convince them of it. "Make anyone change, impossible for even Darth Sidious, this is. Chose this, Skywalker did." Unless they actively want to redeem themselves, they'll just continue in their old paths. And part of getting them to see that they can change is by letting them see prostitution is evil.
Believe it or not, I feel the same way. I'm a Christian, of course I believe you can change. I'm personally going through a masturbation and porn addiction at the moment, and I find that my life is better without those two things. The way we get them to change is not by affirming that what they're doing is okay, though.
5409762
Thank you!
5409729
Yes I do agree with this.
Mmmm'kay....
But Slut Shaming leads to abortion...
If you wanna low key endorse that, then you go ahead.
But you forefit any 'right' to shame pregnant teenagers or young single women.
5409825
Does it, though? If less people are having premarital or extramarital sex, the rate of unwanted babies will naturally decline, and by that rate, so will abortion. Most of the abortions done in the nation are not out of incest or rape, but because having the child was inconvenient.
And if we want to deflate the numbers of teenage pregnancies or young single pregnancies, they need to be able to see that the choice they make of having an open sex life will inevitably lead to misery.
Liberals aren't leftists, and the leftists you most probably are talking about are libertarian socialists at best.
My question is, how do you relate your love of My Little Pony (a show that has strong female characters and emphasizes female empowerment) with your views on feminism that you expressed in this post?
5409867
The female empowerment the show portrays shows autonomy of choice. It means they think. They take charge and they mess up, but continue until they triumph. In other words, it does not matter if the characters were male or female. You could replace the cast with male counterparts and nothing would change except for maybe how they spend their free time. It isn't about exalting one gender over another, but about crafting good stories and good morals.
Meanwhile, the radical feminism we see today, that demoralizes traditional marriage, that urges women to become sluts and destroy their autonomy of choice, that demonizes men and demands privileges they did not earn, does not resemble the female empowerment in the show.
5409841
You're right. I should call them what they really are: anti-white, radical communists.
5409837
Pre marital sex doesnt necessarily mean that the baby is unwanted either.
5409872
Calling them all communists isnt productive really, they arent necessarily communists as they are neoliberals and other lefty ideologies, sure some could be considered libcomms or such but communism is a really broad term nowadays.
5409884
If they call conservatives fascists and Nazis, I can call them Communists. I won't win by playing a worse version of the game they're playing and go like, "No, you're the real Nazis! You're the ones acting more like fascism!" It won't matter. And I won't win by just ignoring the taunts they level at me either; if left unchecked, they'll trample all over me. Don't Tread On Me won't work anymore.
5409910
Those do be ancomms chief.
5409837
The answer to that involves comprehensive sexual education and more parents who care enough about their children to make sure they know the facts and risks of sex.
At no point did I address either of these instances. You are not denying or refuting my accusation that your attitude is part of the problem by bringing this up. Yes, the majority of abortions are for pregnancies are deemed inconvenient: but are you at least a little bit curious about why 'Good Christian Girls' who were raised on "Abortion = Murder" somehow end up getting them anyway?
Young women who have the revelation that their friends, family, community, and church, are gonna look at them and also treat them (and a lot of so called Christians do, don't pretend that your faith is immune to the concept of undermining your God by judging others, especially not after your blatant display of being jugemental) like cheap whores with no brains or self control don't need a lot of push to try to quietly and secretly terminate their pregnancy before certain people find out about it.
So I say again: you are low-key endorsing abortion by saying that slut shaming is the solution.
If a pregnant teenager has to suffer the anxiety of what her family is gonna think about the plus sign on a cheap plastic stick, you bet your ass she's gonna do what she can to bury the issue.
5409951
I understand perfectly well what you mean. That's usually a fault of the parent for not teaching them correctly, as you stated the importance of before. If they're just told that abortion is murder, but they don't actually intrinsically believe it or know it, then of course they'll question it when they get older, and if they're dissatisfied with the traditional answer they'll rebel, and they'll defy the rules, and end up pregnant. That part was a result of their own actions, though, and part of making your own choices is accepting your own consequences. But abortion absolves them of any consequence, so they'll go ahead and do it to cover it up. And of course, it just feeds a downward spiral once they realize they have conquered their own body. So it's a mix of their own actions and a bad parenting strategy.
Shaming the action of selling yourself out is not the same as degrading those who have become sluts themselves. If anyone needs help, it's them. Like I said, those involved in the sex work industry have a history and a record of mental health problems and abuse. So naturally, the best choice here is to condemn the sex work industry and teach the risks and problems to dissuade rising generations from entering it. Plus, if we can make them more confident in themselves and in their capacity to pursue meaningful relationships, their desire to sell themselves out will diminish.
(And for the record, yes, abortion is murder. But that's for another time.)
5409951
Yep.
5409979
If you can't seperate everyone Left of Center in American Politics from the Far Left (which you demonstrated that you can't consistently do): then why would any teenager going through puberty presume that you're not talking about them specifically when you talk about sexual morality?
Now with that firmly in mind: why would any teenager living in a family or goes to a church that slut shames all girls who are comparatively less conservative than themselves (because its human to use ourselves as base of comparison when judging others) not worry about being harshly placed under the same lens?
Too much rebellion is one reason for why teenagers fail, but so is apathy. If you already believe that your parents think you're a failure or a disappointment: then finding motivation to be better is often fleeting at best.
Another example: why should I consider converting to any flavor of Christianity when a lot of Christians I know often put me in the same room as pedophiles and murderers, or put my wife in equally negative light?
If so many of you already think so little of me, while representing your Christ; then why should I consider making any changes?
Brady, hate me if you want for this, but these consistent and recent political posts from you (and a few others) have made me rapidly lose interest in coming to this site anymore. I came here initially to avoid politics (Facebook for the most part) and to have fun and to gush about a silly little show. Now, I'm not saying that you shouldn't make these; it's your blog, do as you please, but to any passers by like me who came to read stories and have a good time, it's rather unpleasant.
And to anyone that says just to ignore these and the others, I am. I just wanted to express my feelings about how awesome, positive, and humorous I found this page and others. I'm just a bit unhappy I have to avoid this page just to not see any politics. You were someone I could count on to give me a laugh and produce some great stories.
Sorry if I alienate you for being indifferent or unhelpful. I'm just a casual fan wishing for more positivity and happiness. Stay well and safe.
5410002
I wish I could talk about more positive things as well. But I can't allow stuff like this to be left unsaid. On Facebook, no one of importance will see me. And Twitter is a flaming piece of garbage. Instagram is where you go to turn your brain off, and Tik Tok is a complete joke. Here, I have friends and people who accept me. If nothing else, they will listen.
If you really don't want to read the blogs, please don't read the blogs. If you came here for my stories, please read my stories. But I do get what you mean. What difference does it really make? All I do is get liberals angry and start intense political, theological, and moral arguments. No one ever really agrees with me. I'm perfectly fine with that--I don't need someone else to tell me that what I believe is correct. But still, people come here for escapism. If I bring in politics, the place they escape to becomes unsafe. So I suppose I'll spread these out in the future. As much fun as I get from speaking out, that's not fun for users interested in fanfiction.
5410001
As far as I've seen so far, you haven't shown any reason to be a pedophile or murderer. You disagree with a lot of points I make regarding policies, but I know nothing you've done that shows you to be a terrible person, Spider. You're honest and intelligent, and genuine in what you say. I never felt as though you were duplicitous. Sure, you're strict, but that's hardly condemning.
I suppose you met Christians who were confused about the concept of hating sin but loving the sinner. Maybe you misjudged their denouncing of sinful behaviors for denouncing you for indulging in sinful behavior. And maybe you met Christians who hated you because you weren't an outspoken conservative. I don't speak for you, of course. But I hardly think that if they were true Christians, they were doing it with bad intent. If they did have bad intent, though, God will take care of it. We got goal-line defense at the pearly gates. They'll answer for their own sins.
You think I don't know about Christians who are bad at being Christian? I don't like them either. One of the main ways the devil likes to destroy brotherhood is to confuse Christians to either be super judgemental of people, or to be not judgemental enough of actions. I am saying that no one is inherently worth less than another because of whatever sins he or she did. But certain actions that they do take are not compatible with the values we hold dear, so to help them, we must speak out against evil behavior.
I do realize that I was harsh in my words in the blog, though. I understand why you concluded I was being a hypocrite. So I apologize for my lack of transparency and my contradictory actions. It can hurt people earnestly seeking answers like yourself.
5410002
Well Brady seems to have gone rather political as of late. I don't do stuff like this in my blogs because I am about bringing happiness to my followers, not turbulence and division. Cute avatar by the way, Cozy Glow is the second cutest filly.....only Starlight as a filly is cuter.
5409720
When it comes to how you deliver your information, you do it as you wish but in that thread about the men, you do come off as sort of a judgmental asshole. You seem to be way too preachy in your posts and no one likes being preached to.
Now here is the thing when it comes to "slut shaming." I honestly think that doing so isn't going to stop her from being promiscuous. All it is going to do is drive her even further into that negative behavior. One big question though, what about man sluts? Shouldn't they be shamed too or is it ok for men to be hos? Try to steer those who are sexually promiscuous away from that lifestyle in a positive way rather than shunning and shaming them. They get pleasure out of sex and if you throw so much negativity their way, they'll seek out sex to forget that negativity and feel better.
Oh yes, that scare word that is applied to so many people, people who AREN'T communists. A true communist is someone like Lenin, someone who wants all means of production owned by the state. These people you are calling commies really aren't. I'm pretty sure they believe in private property rights and free enterprise.
I have some advice for you, advice that might make you less stressed. Don't get so angry over things that don't affect you. Just sit back, relax, and not be concerned over everything that you seem to rant so much over. I just hope the hell you never have any daughters. Chances are you'd probably have their hole sewn shut until her wedding day to keep her "pure."
5410018
That's the trick though: what is the best method for calling out what we see as evil without coming off as aggressive missionaries who are just uncomfortable with who someone else is?
We can be the best people we can be, but neither of us can fairly expect to be good people as long as enough people claim a high ground to put others down. When we say or do things that resemble moral posturing to make ourselves feel bigger, to people who have been on the receiving end of being put down just for being different: who are we to them?
By taking up the banner of a Divine that was used to brow beat someone down; we introduce ourselves as abusers, getting off on the wrong foot before even the first step.
I don't see you as a hypocrite, because I have the pre-existing benefit of knowing you try and just get carried away when you feel you are making a point for your interpretation of Divine Will; but I can certainly understand writing someone off for resembling something harmful.
I certainly apologize for taking a harsh direction in calling out certain members of your faith, but inviting someone into your home begins with cleaning up. You're not in a position to tell a guest to wipe their feet if you're ignoring mold.
Blessed be
5410013
I just don't think adding fuel to the fire doesn't help solve anything but I guess if you are comfortable with these, I can't stop you. Your blog, your life. I'll go about my business. Good talking with you, man.
5410022
Precisely my point. Spread love and kindness. Don't fight fire with fire. That will just spread more fire.
5410028
This is a major problem with those whose values are deeply rooted in religion. They see certain things as "evil" and "sinful." Now I tend to think things such as being a slut (both male and female) are problematic and promiscuity is self-destructive behavior but is it evil, no. To me, evil is things on Hitler level....things such as ethnic cleansing, well that and cruelty to animals, pedophilia, rape....hell even forced religious conversion is evil in my eyes. When it comes to the religious right though, they find it sinful to simply take a shit in the wrong toilet.
All right no one is paying attention to the important detail. Why the old Biblical rules were created in the first place.
Brady you seem to be forgetting that when the various ancient mythological texts of the various Ancient Hebrew Sects and the various Abrahamic Cults that survived long enough to be sown together in the year 325 in Nicaea Greece and had the rules that are part of Judaism and Christianity in them are there because of the ecological and technological conditions of their time. People made these rules with a limited and archaic understanding of nature and the human body.
The reason why the Greeks or the Romans did not make similar rules before that council is because ironically their medicine was better than that of their contemporaries the Ancient Hebrews. And it's understandable why. They were wealthier empires with plenty of food available and their scholars had the time to research. The Ancient Romans and Greeks used a plant called Silphium as the main ingredient for herbal drinkable medicine that worked pretty similar to actual birth control. Mainly in that it tricked the female body into functioning as if it was already pregnant.
This was the reason why Greeks and Romans had rules regulating and ensuring sanitation standards for brothels as well as having a religion and culture that while misogynistic did not shy away from nudity and sex as much.
A combination of political upheavals and diminishing maintenance of farming areas for the plants led to their extinction as they had long been only available in farms for several hundreds of years at that point.
You are trying to apply the ethical and health codes of more superstitious and impoverished desert nomads that much like the rest of the ancient world used the limited understanding of their environment to develop laws to immediately stablish order and to maintain it in a world of stone and iron. Codes that they had a hard time maintaining mind you and resorted to frequent public execution to maintain, and a ton of secret keeping.
We live in an era where we have probes transmitting near Pluto and bathing is a daily necessity to most of the reading and writing world.
Are you seriously not seeing how applying those old laws this day and age is going to fall on its face?
I strongly disagree with this statement. Both me and a friend of mine grew up without dads in our lives and none of us ever did that at such a young age, nor were we raised like that.
Don't blame a political group for someone having a crappy childhood. There are other reasons for children being ruined and family structure being destroyed, e.g. drugs. The reason my mum left my dad was because he was an abusive alcoholic druggie.
I like a bit of drama too, doesn't mean I actively start it just to scratch that itch.
Other than those little tidbits, you might have a point. Just remember, do not judge lest ye be judged and love thy neighbour (though don't like what they do if what they do is sinful)
5410022
When the word 'Communist' is banded about online these days, it's usually as an insult rather than in the correct meaning of the term.
5410894
And that is why I can't take people who use the term as an insult seriously. They need to come up with an accurate term to throw insults around with.
5410897
Same. It's part of the reason I rarely bring up politics on my blog anymore.
5410222
This isn't about the ancient religious rules and the Law of Moses, which I don't follow. That discussion is entirely separate from what I presented above. Rarely did I claim that prostitution and casual, extramarital sex was bad because God said so several thousand years ago. I certainly agree with God that it's bad, but I am not arguing against it simply because God said so. What I said above is substantiated evidence across universal cultures that such a thing is impractical, immoral, and undesirable. So I don't know who you're arguing with, or where you're attacking me.
5410899
Of course I also think about what my followers would want to see and I'm pretty sure that posting political stuff there would cause me to lose some. They don't want to hear about it and there are political groups to air such stuff in anyway.
5410920
I'm curious, do you think man sluts should be shamed too or is it ok for them to go screw people non-stop since they can't get knocked up?
5410925
What do you think? Of course. Women make up the vast, vast majority of the market, so I was addressing the women specifically, but sure, I condemn men who whore as well. The implication was that the entire industry was vile, not just the women who do it, but the men as well.
5410951
Well given how you always seem to have a misogynistic attitude, I was just curious. i'm sure there are more man whores than you think, they just don't get called out the way women do because society seems to think it is perfectly ok for men to go and score with a lot of women, hell they are praised for it and deemed "a real man" for it. I'm not a fan of promiscuity at all and I certainly wouldn't date a woman who sleeps around, much less shackle up with her, I simply decided to bring up that both can engage in this self-destructive behavior.
5410958
Bruh. Misogyny has been thrown around so often and so falsely that it's lost the edge of an actual insult.
I explained above why that is the perceived case in society. I don't agree with it, but I understand why people think that way.
I suppose it's nice to know that we both wouldn't sleep with loose women. Ayyy, look at that, we agree on something! It's a bonding moment!
5410925
Well said. Ponies forever.
5411003
The most political I have ever gotten in any blog post of mine is promoting my "Election in Ponyville" stories....and ponies are much more positive!
5411026
Ain't that the truth. Let them be a model for us to follow.
LOL I now feel bad about being MIA from this site, because it caused me to miss this beautiful post.
One of the things I love about my fiancee is how she saved herself for me. She didn't even kiss a guy before meeting me. Not for religious reasons. She just wanted her first time to be special and with her husband. I also love evolutionary psychology, especially as it pertains to sexual dynamics. I'm also as anti-SJW as you can get.
That said, the fuck are you on about with this post? What *specifically* do you propose? Crafting laws to judge and shame sluts? If not, then is society supposed to do this on their own? How would you make sure that strangers harshly judge female promiscuity? Would there be laws regarding that? If not, then isn't this all just wishful thinking?
Also, on the topic of judgement, I now have to judge you. Because from my experience, the vast, vaaast majority of guys who are fixated on this bullshit are the ones who couldn't get an attractive girl to commit to them if their life depended on it, much less get the mythical virgin wife who puts her husband and family first. I'm talking about this fixation on feminism, evolutionary psychology, sexual dynamics, being a "high-value man," etc.
Because even if I don't include your blog posts, some of your posts on this site legitimately make me shake my head and laugh.
5411704
You say this like you assume it's my highest priority to get a girlfriend right now, like I tried and failed to maintain a relationship. I'm not interested in pursuing one until I perform a proselytizing mission for my church. After those two years are up, then I can be a lady killer. I admit, I do get lonely and wish I had one, but I'm also mature enough to wait until my higher priorities are in place. Multiple times, I had to consider my options for my future with the young women I was friends with in high school. This is a very important decision, after all. Why not ask for the best? And I'm fairly confident I can get that mythical virtuous woman; I go to a private college almost exclusively made up of members of my church. If not, it won't stop me from becoming my best self anyway.
5411739
That's definitely fair. I did the same and got it.
Not sure if that's the best move haha. You know what they say about "innocent" church girls
I can also confirm the true nature of "religious" "trad" girls haha.
Good mentality to have.
To be honest, my issue with your post has nothing to do with politics, or even with the fact that you're "slut shaming." My issue is that it's just cringe. It's as cringy as people with Trump Derangement Syndrome. I see this stuff everywhere online, and it only exists online, because if people were to talk like this in real life, they'd be rightfully laughed out of the room.
Also, if you really want to make a difference, make others look up to you. Get your ideal woman. Raise your ideal family with the values you want so that they succeed. People will naturally want to replicate success. I do this with my relationship all the time. It's like a cheat code compared to making arguments that will turn most people away.