I regularly get books sent to me in the mail, and lots of them look good to me. That means that I am glad I now own them, and look forward to the time when I might read them. But occasionally a book is sent to me that I just have to read right away. Maybe it is because it looks fantastic, or maybe it is because I need to find out why on earth someone would have written something like that. This month’s book of the month selection falls in this last category.
I recently received — free, gratis, pro bono — a copy of a book on life between the sexes, titled Eggs Are Expensive, Sperm Is Cheap. The subtitle is “50 Politically Incorrect Thoughts for Men,” and I have to say that this was a book that fully delivered on the implied promise.
Let me get my one gripe out of the way at the first. The author assumes evolutionary realities throughout in a way that is a nuisance to people like me. That said, this does not undo the outrageousness of his project or the cogency of his observations.
“Remember the fundamental lesson: eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap. A society can afford to lose a lot of its men. It can’t afford to lose many of its women or children. So societies that sacrifice men to protect women and children are more likely to survive. That’s why men fight the wars and go downstairs in their underpants to check out the weird sound in the basement” (p. 10).
Greg Krehbiel is the author, and he argues (persuasively, in my view) that egalitarianism is nonsensical and contradictory, and that male obligations have been somewhat arbitrarily rebranded as privileges, so that feminists could argue that women need to be given access to these ” privileges.”
“The male obligation to go out into the world and earn a living — usually away from his wife and children — was cast as some sort of male privilege . . . Men are the providers, so suck it up and go dig some coal” ( p. 20).
Is anybody offended yet?
“The truth nobody wants to face is that women are at the top of their game when they’re in their 20s. At that point they are the rock stars of the sexual marketplace and they have their best chance of finding a mate. They are also more fertile and more likely to bear healthy children” ( p. 25).
So instead of that, feminists are busy urging women to find their groove somewhere boring and fruitless, some career that is kind of dead-endy.
“If you want the men in your society to be anything more than lazy bums, you need a system where sex is rare, and where women are choosy about the right things” (p. 34).
This book is short, is a very quick read, and is full of horse sense, at soon to be illegal levels. Get it, read it, enjoy it. In fact, I don’t even mind if you obtain it in order to read it guiltily. The first step is often the hardest.
game.
Game, AKA, total bovine poo based on pseudo evo/psych theories first presented by Richard Dawkins.
Read some Dalrock https://dalrock.wordpress.com/
The reality of sexual differences matter.
Why do you think there is such an effort to blur them? It is because they matter, that’s why.
Of course sex differences matter, but Dalrock is enough to make you despair for all of mankind. By their fruits you shall know them, and the bitterness, hatred, and sexual rage within those threads should be a clue that something is all wrong there.
The fruits of feminism. game is the reaction to it. However, Dalrock (I have read maybe two posts by him) is happy and can see with a cold-reasoned eye what/why things are happening the way they do. The reasoning is similar to the blurbs offered from “Eggs Are Expensive, Sperm Is Cheap”. That is why I commented with the word ‘game’. Look, its making inroads in the culture because young men are protecting themselves emotionally, sexually, and financially from feminist women. Why do I say it is making inroads into the culture? Because a book with some thoughts from it… Read more »
Just for the record, my book absolutely does not advocate a “game, pick up artist” point of view.
As you can probably see from this thread, it is now nearly impossible to distinquish men’s rights from game. So while feminism revolves around female superiority, men’s rights have simply become a mirror of that, male superiority and dominance in all things. Neither of those models are going to be beneficial to our culture at large.
I apologize for the side discussion in a thread about your book, and I do sincerely congratulate you for writing it. Many of your ideas really do need to be heard.
No problem. I learned long ago that it’s a fool’s game to try to control an internet discussion. :-) Things will go where they will go.
About game, men’s rights and so on, I think those communities make a lot of very interesting and important points that people should consider, but I don’t think most of them would like my book because I embrace some things (e.g., male disposability) and reject other things (e.g., promiscuity) in a way they wouldn’t like.
“So while feminism revolves around female superiority”
I’m not sure it does. I think feminism revolves around the lack of female inferiority. Lots of people dislike the concept of egalitarianism, but really, men are as good as women, and women are as good as men. Neither sex is superior to the other in any essential way. You could say, truthfully, that on average men are larger than women. You could also say, truthfully, that there are times when being small is an advantage – in a time of famine, for instance, when small people require less food. And so forth.
Having read it, I can attest to that.
Your book is a very nice summary that I can be comfortable sending to my Christian friends. Thanks. I detect some Athol Kay in there. Have you read Daniel Amneus? http://fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html
Thanks for the kind words. I don’t believe there’s anything in the book that should upset a Christian. As Pastor Wilson notes, it assumes something like evolutionary psychology, but there’s no reason a Christian has to reject the idea that sexual strategies that work get preserved in the gene pool.
I have read Athol Kay’s first book. I’ve never heard of Daniel Amneus. Thanks for the link.
BTW, to any and all readers who liked the book, I would greatly appreciate a review on Amazon.com.
Greg
It does sound like it. Rationale for treating women as things you get sex from, rather than as fellow image-bearers. The godless evolution part is a feature, not a bug. It seeks to free a man’s conscience to treat women like crap.
Laura, there is nothing in my book that justifies or excuses men mistreating women. In fact, one men’s rights advocate who read my book thought I was wrong to embrace the idea that men should consider themselves disposable in service to women and children.
Thanks for the response. I’ll take a look at your book.
Reading your book now. Amazon let me borrow it on my Kindle.
I don’t want to nitpick and so forth – but are you seriously arguing that the selective abortion and infanticide of girl babies in China is not evidence of boys in China being preferred? Is being allowed to draw breath and see the light of day not a privilege, really?
Also, I see a lot of explanations as to how women are, what we really want as opposed to what we think we want, what will make us happy, and so on. I have to wonder why you think you could possibly know so much about women, given that you aren’t one. If a woman wrote a book explaining men in this way, would you expect to learn from it things you wouldn’t have figured out in the course of living your life as a man?
“You need to be attractive to other women. This will fire your wife’s competitive instincts and she will try to keep up.”
Ugh.
After 33 years of marriage I’m not going to compete for his azz. He can be happy with me or he can take it on the road. If he does not feel exactly the same I’ll be disappointed. Geez, can we never relax?
OK getting into some better stuff now.
OK done. Well, these are your opinions and they are set forth very nicely. Perhaps I will think about writing a book, myself. The World According to Laura.
Laura, thanks for reading my book and for the kind words. In case I didn’t make it clear, the point of the book is not to persuade anyone, but simply to get other ideas and another perspective into people’s heads so that as they observe things in the world they will consider that perspective. IMO, no facts or studies or anything else will persuade people as well as the explanatory power of an idea. They have to see it work as they observe the world for themselves. So, for example, citing a hundred studies showing that feminists want rights for… Read more »
Do you think women in China have no obligations? I bet they do. In fact, I would be willing to bet that where a man is responsible for his parents, a woman in responsible for her in-laws. If the man is expending resources – time, money – on his parents, those are resources that his family aren’t getting. And it probably goes further than that, don’t you think? If you read, for instance, Pearl S. Buck or Amy Tan, you’ll see where at one point betrothed girls were routinely sent to their future in-laws’ houses to live as slaves before… Read more »
Of course women in China have obligations. But the question at hand is why parents who can only have one child choose to have a boy. I’m proposing that a possible reason is that the boy is less likely to be a financial burder and is obligated to care for them in their old age. You’re not going to change that by saying “isn’t this awful” or “women have their problems too.”
There is no need to reply to this,but it is a good point to expand on for Biblical purposes. When God, in the context of social/sexual/family dynamics says to ‘Do X’ it is because He knows that not doing X will cause Y. In your example, the Y is ” boy is less likely to be a financial burder and is obligated to care for them in their old age” . What interests me is the X’s (if in fact they exist) The motive for entertaining this hypothesis is an observation made by a commenter on Biblehub that the Levitival… Read more »
I’m not changing that by saying isn’t this awful or women have their problems too, although I do think being murdered at or before birth trumps any problem the men could possibly have. I’m saying that the reason you came up with, and the solution, don’t really hold water. Women have obligations. It’s not that they don’t have obligations. If you want to change the social structure in China so that a woman doesn’t join her husband’s household and thus takes on his obligations when she marries, but stays in her own, good luck with that. And women do work… Read more »
That’s China’s problem to fix, not ours.
The only point at which it might become out problem is if China decides to go the ancient route of disposing of its excess supply of men by sending them to conquer some other country. (y’know, since it no longer has an imperial court that needs eunuchs.)
I agree that it’s not our problem to fix. I am responding to the argument that selective abortion and infanticide of girls is just a result of women not having any obligations.
“The only point at which it might become out problem is if China decides to go the ancient route of disposing of its excess supply of men by sending them to conquer some other country.” Been wondering about that for years. Who would it be? India, maybe? Us?
India is closer, but there are mountain in the way and, historically speaking, more bad blood between China and Japan.
OTOH, the US is apparently sending Navy ships to sail really close to some Chinese islands, so we may be giving them more provocation that any of their nearer neighbors.
I’ve read about that. I’d love to know what in the heck is going on there.
Distractions from the problems that “migrants” are causing in Europe?
!!!
And secular men employ it out of a rejection of feminism and in defense of themselves. From a godless perspective it is perfectly rational expected behavior on the part of men.
*Some* secular men employ it b/c they think it will get them lots of sex with attractive young women. Some other secular men don’t employ it, for a variety of reasons.
1 – They already have their life partner, so no interest.
2 – They aren’t interested in casual sex.
3 – They respect their fellow human beings too much to be manipulative and insincere in order to get sex from them.
4 – They aren’t sexually attracted to women.
Fine. But, you are talking about it. 1 year ago, you where not. Why? Because it is making inroads at the margins. Since it is well thought out and developed, it will continue to advance until/unless an equally reasoned response it made to hit. Feminist hectoring is not going to work. What interests me is the Biblical truths on display and leveraging those with the movement to gain souls. Some–Vox Day–for example are doing that. Jesus hung out with Tax Collectors and here we are sneering at game practitioners. Christianity is a bit more down-n-dirty than most churchians are comfortable… Read more »
Timothy, you remind me of a dry alcoholic.
what’s that?
That is an addictive person who has left the physical behavior behind but is still stuck in the mind-set.
Naw, I have always been high-intensity full bore like this. As a younger man I did some hard drugs, but those tended to kill thought and depress ‘life’.
When I was taking calculus, a young woman who sat next to me commented how scary I was when I tackled tests, in that I was very intense and completely unaware of my surroundings.
If it makes you more comfortable, I have mellowed a bit (:
I’m talking about how you talk so much about game and the attendant worldview. You say you have stopped the casual sex but I don’t know if you’ve really left it behind. Your business, of course.
Oh goodness no. Temptation rears its head from time to time, but it is nothing like it was and when it hits I offer it to the Lord with a prayer. The intensity you see is because game is one of several ‘marginal’ ideas that I keep track of. “Marginal” in the sense that the late Jude Wanniski used it. In economic terms, it is where the highest growth potential and money is. In intellectual terms, it is where investment in ideas is being done at considerable cost by independent minds. Others are the nature of our currency, the ‘alternate’… Read more »
“Some–Vox Day–for example are doing that.”
No, he is not. What he is doing is driving people away from Christ.
Roosh is now reading the Bible. There is a counter-example
So, apparently Ross Douthat reads Moldbug and I guess I’m going to have to read Houellebecq.
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/houellebecqs-islam-houellebecqs-west/?_r=0
This rabbit hole…It feels like Dostoevsky and Hesse, like stepping into Tolstoy’s War and Peace ….like being the only red-uniformed Star Trek crewmember on the transporter
Douthat also tweets a RIP to Rene Girard today, reminding me that I need to read Girard. I really need to stop wasting time trading barbs with feminists.
NRx is in the catacombs.
I’m guessing that Krychek_2 and RandMan will agree with such conclusions as Doug quotes, since, you know, human flourshing, utilitarianism, Evohlooshion and whatnot.
Paw through any anthropology text you wish, old or recent, and you’ll find MANY constants across ALL human societies. The details of kinship systems vary, but every clan and tribe has one, and all of them work very hard at making sure babies grow up in stable families. Over the last 50 years or so, America has been attempting something unprecedented in human history. In my college days, the Male Chauvinist Pig of the Year award went to George Gilder for “Sexual Suicide.” The gummit was making teenage girls an offer no teenage boy could hope to match. All they… Read more »
The details of kinship systems vary, but every clan and tribe has one,
and all of them work very hard at making sure babies grow up in stable
families.
James Q. Wilson, in his book The Moral Sense differs. He notes at least one tribe that does not.
I’ve known Greg K. as long as Jane D. My favorite Greg notion from olden days was that instead of a maid of honor and a best man, the bride and groom should have seconds. Not as in an extra slice of wedding cake, but as in a duel. And during the wedding ceremony, the groom would say his vows and then hand a pistol to the bride’s second, saying something like “If I screw this up, shoot me.” And then the bride would do likewise with the groom’s second. I always thought that notion had some merit.
I totally forgot about that, LOL!
Good memory, but the offense has to be a little more serious than screwing up. :-)
Well, I was meaning by that something on a rather grand scale.
Thanks for the kind words. In my mind it’s a commentary on the sickness of our culture that my observations (that should be common sense) are outrageous, but … such is life. -Greg Krehbiel
From Doug’s review, it sounds like your book covers similar ground to Roy F. Baumeister’s “Is there anything good about men?”. Have you read this?
I haven’t. Is it worth reading?
I found it interesting. Given what Doug has said about your book, I think you’d find it worthwhile to compare it with yours. It’s not very long. As usual, take it with a grain of salt.
https://gendertruce.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/baumeister-roy-is-there-anything-good-about-men.pdf
I ordered a copy. Thanks.
Do you read NRx sites like Dalrock? https://dalrock.wordpress.com/
Yes, sometimes. I agree with a lot of what he says.
Just read this last night. Especially found the insight to how equalitarian cultures will, of necessity, skew towards an over emphasis of female-type values. Helped me to see this mess in less ‘evil’ terms.
The points at the end about the practical next steps were great. Having had basically the same list for years (but in a format that was less than uplifting, shall we say), these were worded in such a positive manner that i fully intend to completely rip you off the next time the subject comes up ;)
I haven’t read the book. Perhaps I will.
Can you tell me, what constitutes an “over” emphasis of female-type values? What would an appropriate emphasis on female-type values be like? And what are some examples of female-type values?
It is extreme dishonesty to deny that conservative christian women seek to optimize their own mate selection. Conflating sexual objectification with “crap,” “poo,” and “USDA Choice” are examples of feminine primary values. This is misandric demonization of the entire male side of the exchange. Contrary to popular herecy, female standards of attraction are not more spiritual than male standards of attraction. Men are not like children, and being good does not mean being child-like.
“jeers”.
**eyeroll**
Ah! I get it now.
It is extreme dishonesty to deny that … women seek to optimize their own mate selection.
Game, therefore is the tools and methods men use to be perceived as optimal mates. It is basically looking at yourself as the woman would and modifying your appearance, behavior to look like an optimal mate.
That means having to think like a woman.
yikes!
It also includes the adoption of certain feminine (or rather, effeminate) behaviors like cattiness and insults disguised as compliments.
Is this the Greg who once frequented the Ligonier forums in the mid 90s?
If so, great to hear from you again! And you still write and argue in a compelling fashion. God’s blessings on you brother!
Provided I am not violating the ship of Theseus paradox, yes, I am that Greg. Thanks for the kind words.
Just finished this morning. I’m not sure I completely agree with everything you say – I tend to be suspicious of a prescription of a monolithic way of fulfilling Biblical roles for genders – but I think you have accurately diagnosed a lot of problems with both feminism and the MRA movement, and proposed many solutions I do whole-heartedly support.
Trivial note – I love your comment on Lucy Liu – major props for appreciating Elementary! :)
To me, it’s kind of like:
If loud noises bother you, and bright lights bother me, and we go into a loud, bright place, your complaint will be:
“It’s loud in here!”
and mine will be:
“It’s bright in here!”
And you and I might start arguing about what’s wrong with the place and how to fix it. Both of us will be right, though we appear to disagree. Neither of us will have the complete solution.
I’m a bit confused – who are the “you and me” in this circumstance? Feminists and MRAs? You, Laura, and me, Ian? Men and women?
All of the above, I guess.
Hmmm. As a general simile for conflict based on finite perspectives in a fallen world, I agree. :)
The thing to do is to listen to others’ concerns, and respect them, even if we don’t share them. It’s hard sometimes to look at someone else’s differing perspective without immediately going into arguing mode.
I told my husband once how I was irritated by something I’d read in the news. He started arguing about how it wasn’t a problem, and I was beginning to argue back about how it was, when he just stopped and said: “It bothers you.” And I said, “Yes, it bothers me.” And that was that.
How hard is that, really?
I agree that especially when in relationship, that’s what needs to be done. But some things that bother us demand action, and when actions conflict, then comes problems.
It’s the first step. I think often that before a person dismisses another’s concern, “that’s not a problem,” he should stop and ask himself, “If it’s a problem, would it be a problem for me personally?” And if the answer is “no” then he should be very slow to dismiss it. Example: a black person complains to a white person about being pulled over for made-up traffic offenses and he believes that it is because he’s black. The first impulse the white person should have is to listen. It should not be to begin explaining how the black person is… Read more »
But what if he actually is making it up, or rather rationalizing a valid stop by blaming it on racism?
You don’t jump in and start explaining how it’s wrong, is what I’m saying. If a black person says he is being stopped more often b/c he’s black, and you are white, how in the world are you going to know that he’s making it up, or rationalizing a valid stop? If it’s happening, you wouldn’t be there to see it. The most you could do is say “I don’t know. I wasn’t there.” And if you are in a position to find out, you could keep an open mind until you do. It’s human nature to want to maintain… Read more »
How would it rock my boat? Even if police have to start randomly stopping me to even up their stop numbers, it won’t even up the conviction numbers. (Unless they start artificially evening up that, which would indeed rock my boat.)
I don’t know you and I don’t know if you rush to explain that DWB stops don’t really happen, or enough about your character to speculate as to why if in fact you do, so I’m not talking about you here; but some folks are personally overinvested in a racist worldview that they would have to reconsider if they had to acknowledge this kind of thing. That’s the boat they don’t want to rock.
No problem not agreeing with me on everything. As I said in the beginning, I don’t even always agree with me on everything! :-)
At times I have pointed out that work isn’t always glamorous and some jobs suck. The wife who wants to work for fulfulment often wants a specific type of job. In an office somewhere. Not gutting fish at the factory with the other women who are supplementing their husband’s low income but would rather be home with their family.
Amen! The idea of work as “male privilege” is rather demeaning to those women who have always worked, washing people’s laundry for pennies so as to help put food on the table.
Conversely however, the entire notion of women as “rock stars of the sexual marketplace,” shows a complete lack of empathy for the nature of being a chuck roast stamped “USDA Choice.”
This. Always this. Ask anyone supervising groups of working class or lower middle class women in an industrial or service environment. The vast majority of them want to be home keeping an eye on their kids, but can’t, because feminists upended our economy so that women could have glamorous lives as lawyers and journalists.
Some people would argue that “some jobs suck” is itself a social problem. For example, I fit the stereotypical “nerd” stereotype: highly suited to creative mental work, limited aptitude or motivation for physical work, only moderate drive. Modern society seeks out such people, so I have a very comfortable and interesting job. If I were in a poor society with limited educational opportunities or need for “smart but not practical” people, I’d struggle badly. Conversely, there are people of a more physical bent who are finding that what they have to offer is transitioning from “vital” to “replaceable”. Should men… Read more »
I know people with physical jobs that they enjoy and who would hate my job.
My position is that work is toilsome as a result of the Fall. That we need to work to provide regardless, but that it is appropriate to ameliorate the effects of the Fall: make work less toilsome.
Man, I love my job. What does that mean?
That you have not sufficiently embraced the curse.
: )
That you are blessed.
Should men have a right to a good job? – no. a “right” implies something that must exist. As a job must be created (as opposed to the right of free speech, for instance) then it cannot be a right. In fact, I oppose the whole idea of work as a right. Is fulfilling work a privilege? – yes. “By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread…” gen 3:19. Fulfilling work was taken away as a given many, many years ago. Is it fair that some [get this privilege]? – no, of course not. In what world do… Read more »
*laughs* Good catch. Don’t get me started on “rights”.
I’ve noticed that a “right” has moved from something that is granted and guaranteed by an authority (“mining right”, “right of reply”, …) to a freestanding moral claim. We’ve gone from obligations grounded in a philosophy of creation to demands (on an unspecified party) grounded in whatever happens to be morally fashionable.
Plenty of men want those office jobs too. They go to great lengths to prepare themselves for them so they’ll never have to perform manual labor. Is that wrong?
Not necessarily. My point was not that having nice jobs is a bad thing; it is good to make work less toilsome. Rather that the primary issue is provision. That many jobs are toilsome, and the desire for meaning may only apply to select jobs. Men should work for their family regardless of whether there is work fulfullment. Increasing the numbers of jobs that are fulfilling is a good thing. Feminism’s drive for work based fulfullment for women misses that this is secondary, and fails to appreciate that many men have unfulfiilling jobs. It is an envy of men having… Read more »
Reasons why a woman might want a job: 1 – To support her household, either in conjunction with her spouse, or alone. (Let’s not assume divorce or single motherhood here – widows still exist. And some women live alone, but they still have to eat.) 2 – Because she has things she wants to accomplish. She’s a doctor, or a research scientist, or a graphic designer. 3 – To occupy herself, arrange some social interaction, and get out of the house. This might be especially true of empty-nesters, or women who have never had children. I see feminism supporting all… Read more »
Laura, I don’t have a problem with women working (though my view is more nuanced). I have a problem with the “fulfilling life” mantra which I think is created on false expectations and encourages envy.
Jobs may be fulfilling but still inconsequential or even detrimental.
Women may see paid word as fulfilling but raising children as unfulfilling or menial.
Women may over-rate payment such that the same job as a volunteer is rated lower than the work as an employee. This is misguided, especially if you don’t need the money because volunteering allows more freedom.
1. No problem with this. Note though, do you need as much money as you think you do? Increasing women into the job market drives down wages (increased supply), thus causing men to bring home less money for their families. 2. No problem with this in general but if she is a mother, well adjusted godly children are a higher priority for accomplishment. I know men in these fields who would consider failure as a husband or father worse than failure to accomplish. 3. Work is not necessary for these things. And changing the structure of home life deals with… Read more »
1 – “Note though, do you need as much money as you think you do?” Naturally, this question could be asked of men, especially those who express being stressed out and beat down over the need to provide. Either way, if decreasing your income means you find yourself taking your credit card to the grocery store because you don’t have enough money in your account to buy groceries, then yes, you need that money. 2 – No argument. Some of us have managed to both hold down full-time jobs and produce such children. Sometimes the parents put appropriate attention and… Read more »
To your most recent enumeration. 1. My response was to your claim. You said that she may be supplementing the income. To which I answered true but you may not need as much money. Meaning make sure the supplementing is necessary. If they have more than enough money she doesn’t need to work and he may wish to reconsider his hours if they are excessive (or they may wish to be more generous). I think that husbands should provide. I acknowledge that she may have to help, but to assess need and want. 2. My comment was if she is… Read more »
Okay. We have a disagreement, which is fine. I don’t think there’s a problem in the world with a wife providing. Scenario: The husband can choose between a job that sufficiently supports the family, but has significant physical dangers, or a less dangerous job that pays less and would require the wife to fill in so they’re not running into debt just putting food on the table. Should she be willing to step up? Obviously yes. Suppose that the job isn’t physically dangerous, but what the company does is unethical; what the husband specifically has to do skates close to… Read more »
Your point #1 is oft overlooked.
Almost doubling the workforce over the 70s surely had a detrimental effect on employment.
Introduction, Page 1 by the writer’s own admission: “First of all, this is not a scholarly work…”
So firmly it sits in the compost heap of Sturgeon’s law: 90% of everything is crap, so why waste time discussing the garbage? Horse sense indeed. Horse something-else.
We all know that absolutely anything that is not scholarly is of no possible value to anyone.
No, it is certainly not when you are loosely evoking ‘science’ while sneering at it at the same time.
Feminists are not “science”, so I don’t see where the sneering at science is. I also don’t see where the “evoking” of science is, either, since all the observations quoted seem to be based on pretty dead obvious facts that require nothing much more sophisticated than 1940s medical knowledge (if that).
He’s talking about evo psych.
That’s really not science, either. But it pretends to be, that’s the difference.
Right. RandMan is talking about the use of evo psych when he says “loosely evoking ‘science'”.
No, I was referring to a classic intellectually dishonest Wilson move: sidling up to a viewpoint that he isn’t willing to defend to bask in it’s alleged credibility and then giving himself a rhetorical out. ” … author assumes evolutionary realities throughout in a way that is a nuisance to people like me. That said, this does not undo… the cogency of his observations.” Clearly Wilson seems excited by this almost-was theologian’s unscholarly idea that young women are sexual rock stars (tell that to 16 year old mexican prostitute in Tijuana,) and breeding stock. If this kind of junk is… Read more »
“First of all, this is not a scholarly work…”
Thank goodness. Perhaps it has some redeeming qualities after all…
Which 90% of what you write should I not waste time on? It would be helpful if you could flag it for me at the beginning.
Thanks in advance.
Well you are here perusing this site, so you clearly like to wallow in it to some degree chum. Might as well add my mud to your pen.
Ah. But I don’t agree with your assessment in general. But it wouldn’t hurt if you were to let us know why you think it shouldn’t apply to you.
I don’t think that. You are free to dismiss my comments. I suppose I don’t need to point out that am not the one asserting some specious claims about social evolutionary theory with no scholarship. I will leave accepting ideas on horse-sense to you if that is all you need. Giddyup.
Yes, that’s all many of us need. And yes, most people here are dismissing your comments. But it’s not because you aren’t scholarly.
Your comments fit Sturgeon’s law very well.
RandMan, no, it’s not scholarly, as I say in the Amazon description and on page one of the book. If you’ve chosen only to read scholarly works, that’s great. Everybody has to divide their time how they see fit.
If you are hinting at evolutionary forces working on social structures I am all ears. I believe that must be true to some degree. However, like any good work of science that requires rigorous scholarship and proof. Since he honestly admits none from the outset, why bother?
You guys can ingest it on faith and confirmation bias… and horse sense.
“Rigorous scholarship and proof,” sure mac.
You mean that dubious bought and paid for scholarship that is owned by avaricious, greedy power-brokers. Proof? Again you are philosophically naive regarding the methods and standards that constitute proof.
Nope. The peer-reviewed, cited, scientific kind will be plenty.
Peer review is a joke. Hucksters, liars, deceivers, looking for a pay out some where. But hey, you need some object to put your faith in so you stand predictably with legions of those worshippers of science as a religion. This link should shut your mouth but you live a life of habitual faith believing in the irrational. “Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false. “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by… Read more »
Thanks for the link. You will want to add this one to your notes: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/making-it-all_1042807.html# Over 270 researchers, working as the Reproducibility Project, had gathered 100 studies from three of the most prestigious journals in the field of social psychology. Then they set about to redo the experiments and see if they could get the same results. Mostly they used the materials and methods the original researchers had used. Direct replications are seldom attempted in the social sciences, even though the ability to repeat an experiment and get the same findings is supposed to be a cornerstone of scientific knowledge.… Read more »
Thanks Timothy.
No, I think RM would draw a distinction between soft social/ psychological science and the “hard sciences.”
Where he drops the ball is with human nature, its fallen corruptness, its propensity to deceive and lie when interpreting the “facts” of science. Bait and switch and get compensated by wicked global elites.
You are correct in the first part. You fall apart in the second.
Well we have some hard science going soft. Keep the faith
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/02/back-to-the-dark-ages-top-french-weatherman-fired-over-climate-change-book-the-global-warming-policy-forum-gwpf/
Back To The Dark Ages: Update: Top French
Meteorologist Who Questioned ‘Global Warming’ Fired
Steve Goddard is good too. Absolutely fearless http://realclimatescience.com/2015/11/how-nasa-fraudsters-quadrupled-sea-level-rise/
Bill Gates will no doubt want to exterminate, smear or financially ruin these fearless people of truth.
Open-source science. Linus-law. Given enough eyes are bugs are shallow. This applies to data analysis and peer-review.
Science is science and the proof is in the facts, not the credentials. They will not be able to put this genie back in the bottle. There are no gatekeepers and knowledge wants to be free. Merit is honored, b.s. is exposed. I don’t think the crony-ists will win this.
One worry is the hardware, but I am hopeful there given the expectations people have nowadays.
The case against peer review is overstated. Looking at soft science like psychology and politically corrupted science like climate are strawmanning. Those who dismiss peer review out of hand have clearly never participated in the process. Peer review doesn’t guarantee that there will be no fraud or that data will necessarily be reproducible but no one ever made that claim. I never give much weight to the first study of a particular issue but wait for it to be reproduced in other studies. This is a Vox Day rhetorical device to counter claims to authority.
Thanks. Vox’s insight makes sense.
So you have faith in the scientific community and go with the confirmation bias of their peers?
Are you using the ‘argument to non-authority’?
Merely pointing out that peer review isn’t immune to confirmation bias, and that things are not true because scientists (or worse acedimics) agree that they are.
“peer review” is the opposite of the scientific method.
Unlike horse sense, the peer review process is integral to actual scholarly research and subjects research methods and findings to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It prevents the spreading of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, personal views.
I’m sure you think that. But it’s still not science.
The usual rhetorical and semantic nonsense aside, peer review is of course an essential arbiter of scientific quality. Information about the status of research results is as important as the findings themselves.
Yes. Peer review is making sure acceptable conclusions are published and unacceptable conclusions are suppressed. In other words: “not science”.
Accept in the case of Psychology where 2/3’s of experiments could not be replicated.
That was non-peer review. Peer review is what let the lies through.
So, where does that leave your comments?
Care to rebut any of the quotes directly?
“The truth nobody wants to face is that women are at the top of their game when they’re in their 20s.” I was 25 over half my life ago. It’s been downhill for me ever since? I don’t think so. My husband doesn’t think so. This is a view of women that doesn’t see us as complete human beings, just as men are. My husband, at 60, isn’t less of a man than he was at 25. His body has deteriorated from age, yes. He also has a lot more wisdom and experience than he did then. I bet y’all… Read more »
Here’s a more in depth analysis. I’m sure you’ll enjoy the SMV chart.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/womens-morphing-need-for-male-investment/
Why do you want me to look at a sexual marketplace value chart? What relevance does that chart have to any chaste woman, or any morally upright man?
Do you think it’s accurate?
I haven’t looked. I want, first, for you to explain the relevance of the “sexual marketplace” and the valuation of people on it, forsooth, to a woman who has never been interested in her sexual value to anyone but her husband. Tell me why you want me to look. If it’s that you want to try to make me feel bad, that random men I don’t even know aren’t getting hot and bothered by looking at me, just blurt it out. I’ll think you’re an idiot and we’ll be straight. Or if that’s not it, tell me what is it.
I don’t mean to go ad-hom here, but I’ve noticed a disconcerting trend with commenters who weild Biblical mononyms at Blog and Mablog. I might start working on my own chart.
Should I add an extra name so you won’t get me confused with other Lauras? It’s why I have my ichthysaur avatar.
I don’t get you confused with other commenters. And, to be clear, I was referring to Job, Malachi, timothy, Barnabas,etc. The Biblical mononyms. Not you.
Aw, man…why you gotta get all anti-Semitic on us?? Are you a Jew hater?
David is a good Biblical mononym.
It is, but I haven’t seen anyone use it around here. At least not mononymously.
fwiw, there was no intent on that use on my part. That is my first name.
Since I don’t like to type, ‘t’ does just fine as a moniker. I can change it if you like (and Disqus lets me)
I have no opinion on the properties of the ID you choose to use here or elswhere on the internet.
You’re a lady of fairly advanced years, unless you’re Sophia Loren I wouldn’t expect you to be sexy. If I were going to attack you personally it would be over the fact that you managed to carry pride, rebelliousness, and a lack of wisdom into your late middle age. The article is relevant to multiple topics we’ve discussed here over the last few weeks.
“the fact that you managed to carry pride, rebelliousness, and a lack of wisdom into your late middle age. ”
Wow! Thanks! What have you carried into yours?
I’ll look at it later.
(“Fairly advanced”, hm. I’m 55. Looking at my family’s longevity, I could have another 40 years on Earth. I’ll be real advanced by then! My dad said something several ago about “now that we’re in the twilight of our years,” and then glanced at my mom and said, “Well. Late afternoon.” She said, “Gettin’ toward suppertime.”)
Incentives matter. And one can marry poorly or marry well.
“When women are young and have the power position in the SMP, promiscuity is intoxicating to them.”
Barnabas, are you a Christian?
Laura, do you know what a non sequitor is?
tur that is.
Yes, I do. And this isn’t one.
Since you aren’t going to answer, I’ll forge ahead. Are the young women you know drunken with indiscriminate sex with multiple partners? Both married and single? Coworkers? Young women in your church? Depending on your age, your own sisters and cousins, or your own daughters and nieces? And if any of them are not intoxicated with promiscuity, not only are you not turning with disgust from this vile slander, not only are you not challenging it, you are actively promoting it. I wonder how you square this with your conscience. You prodded me, personally, to look at the reprehensible garbage… Read more »
you are actively promoting it.
To observe cultural suicide is not to promote it.
Timothy, he’s actively promoting this hateful statement.
Since you have chimed in:
Are the young women of your household, Timothy; the young women at your church; wives of your friends; women you know in the neighborhood or at work, drunken with a lot of indiscriminate sex with multiple partners? Do you have sisters who are young women? Cousins? Does this describe them?
Some, yes. Laura, we are dealing with two societies here. The pagan culture and the Christian culture. Since Christianity is the super-set, we are (and should be) aware of the thinking of the pagan culture. To be aware of it, and to understand it is not the same thing as endorsing it. Since the pagan culture is trapped by sin, and the process of Sanctification is never done on this earth, there will, to varying degrees, be some overlap in behavior between the two sets. That’s why the “Christian women are…” set of comments are not wrong–they describe the overlap… Read more »
1 – Timothy, it doesn’t say “some” young women.
2 – How in the hell does a man know what intoxicates young women?
3 – Can you find a quote from Dalrock where he deplores men having indiscriminate sex, and shames them for it?
I’ll tell you what is going on here. The author of this crap, and you men who are pushing it, want to hold women in contempt, and this stuff tickles your ears. You use it to excuse disrespecting women. And it’s not that women deserve more respect than men. It’s that we don’t deserve less.
ah! excellent link and discussion. thx.
btw, is there a different term than ‘game’? I want to tag that link and other relevant ideas in my notes.
thx.
I think evolutionary psychology is probably the best label that I can think of as a layman. Some might not care for the term but I don’t have a problem with theistic evolution until I see evidence to the contrary.
The Scylla of ‘game’ or the Charybdis of ‘evo-psyche’. There has to be a good Biblical term of correspondence to use instead.
I will think on that.
Biology sez that the normal window for human female fertility is between the ages of 15 and 35. If evolution is your guide, and you believe that the driving principle behind human existence is to mate and create offspring, then yes, the 20’s are the period in which women are most desirable.
It is an argument consistent with the premises.
Don’t puff it up into the straw argument “The 20s are the only age at which women are desirable.”
But look at it. If we’re only saying that men favor women in their 20’s when they are looking to have a lot of babies, then why would this be “the truth that nobody wants to face”? And why describe this as “at the top of their game”? I don’t really think THE driving principle behind human existence is to mate and create offspring. It’s true that if we didn’t have the drive to have sex, we probably wouldn’t have had enough babies to push the race forward. But there’s more to human existence than that. Also, if we’re going… Read more »
As a general statement of how things should be, or model of an ideal society, I agree the idea that women’s sexual attraction to men consists mostly in their fertile appearance is troublesome. It ignores the purposes of marriage, plural. However, much as I agree it’s troubling, I do think as a corrective, the statement has some value. Our society prizes individual happiness and satisfaction to an unhealthy extent, so there’s no real fear that marriage will become just about having kids, even in the most conservative, traditional homes. The idea of mutual emotional and physical satisfaction is ingrained into… Read more »
“As a general statement of how things should be, or model of an ideal society, I agree the idea that women’s sexual attraction to men consists mostly in their fertile appearance is troublesome. It ignores the purposes of marriage, plural.” It’s not just that. Doug pulled that quote a little bit out of context. In that way, it’s stating that women’s sole purpose is to find a mate and have babies. There’s a thing that people do sometimes, that they make everything about them. A man who does that will explain to women that their motive in what they do… Read more »
Its always amazing to me how quickly our enlightened intellectual superiors can completely dismiss certain viewpoints after having spent exactly ZERO time actually evaluating them. And then, with no sense of irony at all, turn around and accuse us of being the closed-minded zealots.
Used to bother me. Now I just think it’s entertaining.
Scholarly does not equal quality. Sadly.
I wonder if the knee-jerk reactions that a book like this will illicit are unwittingly precisely what it intends to illuminate. If so, would it be so difficult for the easily offended to pause, just for a moment, and ask whether the offense is warranted. Exposure is often painful, but is not without reason. Consider: If men are bulls and women china shops it makes no sense for men to go blindly rampaging through and then wonder why so many dishes are broken. Neither does it make any sense to rapidly set-up a makeshift china shop directly in the path… Read more »
“I wonder if the knee-jerk reactions a book like this will illicit are unwittingly precisely what it intends to illuminate. If so, would it be so difficult for the easily offended to pause, just for a moment, and ask whether the offense is warranted.”
You could have a point. This could apply equally to radical feminism, of course.
That’s fair, but would you entertain the thought that what is in that book (I haven’t read it, so I’m going off DW’s review) and radical feminism are mutually exclusive?
It would seem to me that making sex rare (presuming that to be a premise of this book) and using sex to empower women–not through the rarity, exclusivity, and selectiveness of sex, but through the widespread dissemination thereof–such as treating pornography, burlesque, and prostitution as viable exhibitions and expressions of female freedom are two diametrically opposed positions.
“would you entertain the thought that what is in that book (I haven’t read it, so I’m going off DW’s review) and radical feminism are mutually exclusive?”
I’d entertain it, but I suspect they are two sides of the same coin.
There’s a strong branch of feminism that isn’t “sex positive” and deplores pornography and prostitution. That branch views these as exploitation of women. Here’s some info.
What is diametrically opposed is the concept from one side that men ought to control women, and from the other side, that no they don’t.
Excellent recommendation. Thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Thanks.
“If you want the men in your society to be anything more than lazy bums, you need a system where sex is rare, and where women are choosy about the right things” I agree with the sentiments being expressed here and to some extent this is true, however I often wonder, do you really want women leading sexually? Are men so easily influenced that we can manipulate an entire culture using nothing more than our sexual charms? Or are men in possession of higher selves and called to lead? Are men full spiritual beings possessing autonomy or do you simply… Read more »
do you really want women leading sexually? I’m afraid the alternative is for women to be confined in harems. Are men so easily influenced that we can manipulate an entire culture using nothing more than our sexual charms? Intelligence and character help but yes. are men in possession of higher selves and called to lead? Maybe and yes. Are men full spiritual beings possessing autonomy or do you simply dangle a carrot before their noses and lead them were they will go? Only God is autonomous and we’re not that wild about carrots. We are easily lead however. I’ve often… Read more »
LOL! Men are funny and charming, but you are not quite sexual wildebeests or hapless victims of women. I often think civilization has been rather kindly built around the concept of women’s comfort too, but there is a symbiosis at play. Living in the wild among men is only fun for a few weeks at a time ;)
See the comment made in another thread on this blog, to the effect that men need to ditch chivalry and not help women who are having car trouble and so forth, because feminism.
And the rebuttal that feminism didn’t nullify the Golden Rule.
A leader doesn’t look to others to set his standards. The standard-setter is the leader, regardless of who gets to have LEADER on their cap.
That’s true, but when terms like “white knighting” are thrown around when a man helps a woman, then something else is happening besides an abandonment of the Golden Rule.
It’s men urging other men to abandon the Golden Rule, as near as I can tell. Those men using that term are acting like leaders, but a man looking at this ought to ask, is that person leading me anywhere I ought to go.
Sometimes I wonder where we’d all be if it weren’t for the best White Knight of all? And then I see people mock and ridicule the very idea, as if those men are doing something wrong and it makes me feel a bit ill. Some are not worthy of our efforts and our sacrifices, true, and yet none of us were worthy of His either.
Some are not worthy of our efforts and our sacrifices, true, and yet none of us were worthy of His either.
That.
I am actually against chivalry because I think that men should help all people they are able to, not just women (and because, especially in the young, chivalry just turns into flirting). I agree that ditching helping people (of any sex) is wrong.
Absolutely.
I think you will find there is nothing that resembles chivalry in the Bible. Chivalry was a cultural quirk of one particular society in one historical period. The revival of the concept of chivalry in America was always larpy and historically ignorant. I agree that kindness should be extended regardless of gender. I also believe that safeguards against those who would free ride and extract resources are entirely in keeping with scripture.
The criticism of chivalry as flirting is interesting and could probably yield some good analysis. I think you are probably correct but what’s wrong with flirting?
I would say the seeds of chivalry are found in scripture in the concept of special attention being giving to the most vulnerable (e.g., widows and orphans) and the exhortation to treat women as weaker vessels. However, I agree that what developed as chivalry is not biblical as a whole.
I have never taken the time to study this, but from the little I have read here and there, actual chivalry and what we think of as chivalry are two very different things.
I actually think the thing about weaker vessels is a direct reference to the fact that generally, men are stronger than women. And the exhortation is for husbands to recall that fact and take it into account, to spare us exhaustion from an unreasonable work load and to refrain from physically bullying us. It’s the vessels (the shells our souls reside in) that are weaker. This isn’t a comment about women’s characters being weaker. Mark Twain, in Innocents Abroad, visited the Holy Land. He said that all those pictures you see, of Joseph leading a donkey to Bethlehem with a… Read more »
I used to tell my dad that when he wanted me to open doors for girls. I’m not sure the youthful rebellion of my teens is necessarily a good thing, but I still think that the particular trappings of chivalry are tied to courtly love (which is directly tied to flirting, I would argue), which is profoundly foolish, if not outright wicked. However, I don’t think the answer to “stop chivalry” is for guys to stop opening doors or helping ladies out – it’s for guys to open doors for ladies and men, and help out the guy on the… Read more »
What you saw was men auditioning to be mates or “servant leaders” in modern Christian parlance. By wishing to asexualize the interaction you erase the leader from “servant leader” leaving only a servant. The girl may expect to be served based on her gender but the man may expect nothing in return. It is the idealized asexual courtly (as opposed to courting) love of chivalry. I won’t attack the idea completely but those who criticize this flirting are generally resentful out of their own feelings of weakness and lack of agency. Sexualized romantic love builds marriages and families. It is… Read more »
My criticism was flirting under the guise of chivalry. My criticism of flirting itself is that it tends to lead to the appearance or actual state of lack of commitment. If you are a free agent, then flirting is probably appropriate to a moderate degree, otherwise how could you indicate your interest to potential partners. But if you have chosen a partner, either in courting or marriage, then flirting with other women is inappropriate.
I agree with no flirting for the married. I was under the impression it was something like “He can hold the door for you but his heart isn’t as pure as mine is when I hold the door for you milady.” Which is a sentiment entirely possible for someone in the depths of delusional white knighthood. I’ve probably held similar resentments in my younger days.
Larpy is a word. There has to be a cow angle in this somewhere…
For those critical of the “evolutionary psychology” components of this discussion, I have a question: what aspects of human behaviour do you think have no heritable component? (For the record, I find the type of argument presented here plausible, and not incompatible with my belief in young earth, literal-six-day creation.)
There’s plenty of data available from academic, peer reviewed sources to support these ideas if anyone cares to investigate. The atheists who post here claiming science as authoritative will dismiss it out of hand if it conflicts with one of their prog pieties and many of Christians here will just denounce it as evil science if it conflicts with their adopted and baptized prog pieties so I’m not going to do the work of digging it up and linking it. Anyone interested can start with Dalrock or Vox Populi and you’ll find your way there eventually.
I do not understand the instantaneous dismissal. Why dismiss an idea before you understand it? The basic polite thing to do is say, “I don’t know enough to comment” and/or repeat the tenets of the ideas and then why it is wrong. Dalrock is incredibly well reasoned on the financial incentives of divorce for women and the hammer that comes down on husband’s via the legal system–incredibly well reasoned. The differences between men and women as expressed in ‘game’ have a one-to-one (?) correspondence with the restrictions in Leviticus. So, as a scriptural matter, we can see God’s “why” for… Read more »
“Anyone interested can start with Dalrock or Vox Populi and you’ll find your way there eventually.” You’ll find yourself where??! Because those men exhibit the precise opposite of anything resembling fruit of the spirit. Which part of VD’s posts do you find so appealing, “throw acid in their faces” or “leave the human trash behind”? Or perhaps you find the fact that Dalrock must constantly remind his commenters not to advocate corporal punishment for women somewhat charming? Or maybe it’s just, “get bent you whores” and the other charming people he attracts? It takes neither science or religion to recognize… Read more »
Exactly. Thank you.
Apparently you’ve made up your mind before actually discovering what these authors have to say. It’s true that Dalrock’s blog is like a guitar with only one string and that Vox Day has a much more abrasive rhetorical style than our gracious host here — but please tell me what your disagreements with their actual positions are. Putting a phrase in quotation marks isn’t enough.
As for hatred — lack of it is part of what got us into our current mess.
I spent several months reading their blogs, I think I have a pretty good grasp on what these authors have to say. You ask me to tell you what my disagreements with their positions are, while saying that using quotations and speaking of their hatred is not enough? Fine.The fruits of both of these men are hatred, bitterness, shame, and cruelty. They cling to injured male pride, wrapping it about them like a security blanket they can nurse their wounds behind while they work to recruit others. They confuse fear with love and domination with control. They idolize those who… Read more »
No, it is not enough. Specifically, you’re repeating misquotes used by their opponents. They did not say those things. If you can’t achieve that level of basic honesty, then what good is the rest of your opinion?
Who is doing good that they mock and ridicule? Who do they idolize that is doing evil?
I’ve been very interested in the concept of hacks lately and the ways in which we have developed to hack our own biological programming. http://www.xenosystems.net/short-circuit-ii/ Game is such a hack. What we are discussing here is the study of the id. Advertisers and political operatives have been studying ways to hack the id for decades. In our culture we have been engaged in a project of freeing the id from the superego and from general social constraints. Vestigial Victorian ideas that the female has an underdeveloped id and an overdeveloped superego has led the powers that be to focus particularly… Read more »
Why might Christian men want to avoid learning about this stuff? Applied evo psych is powerful stuff. Maybe you thought that you weren’t sexually promiscuous because you were a good Christian but it was really because you were kind of afraid of girls or unsuccessful with women. Stick to the theoretical analysis on blogs with a Christian bent and stay away from PUA blogs or you might fall into temptation.
Absolutely, broken men should apply hacks to women because obviously no woman in her right might could ever love you for who you are. The only obvious solution to this problem is for women to be manipulated, tricked, and deceived until they develop a sexual dependency based entirely on fear and control. That is sarcasm. Applied evo/psych is powerful stuff? So is love, grace, and Christ’s mercy. Sexual fulfillment is not based on triggering the darker aspects of our id, where shame and repression live, unless one is already wounded and broken and now equates love with fear, attraction with… Read more »
Guys, start with The Taming of the Shrew.
Listen buddy, gamers are trying to reinvent the wheel. Women have experienced plenty of anxiety, dread, fear, simply from being compelled to love men all through the ages! Does this cause some women to feel sexual desire towards those who would abuse them? Yes, we are attempting to negotiate our very survival! Something else that inspires a sexual response in many people…death! Shall we now start advocating necrophilia? We don’t have to, it’s already thriving. These things are not a part of our design, they are not innate to who women are, they are the scars and wounds we have… Read more »
Why would a Christian man want to learn about this stuff? 1. You should just be curious about how the world works. 2. It’s going to give you a much clearer understanding of modern social ills and even ways in which scripture may be warped to fit cultural trends. 3. Marital satisfaction. The id is not evil in itself. It serves its purpose to make babies and make strong, beautiful babies. Within the restraints of marriage is the place for the id to be properly satisfied. You are likely neglecting this in your relationship because that is what you’ve been… Read more »
Christian singles. Men, finding a mate is a competition. Being a Christian doesn’t free you from this biological hard truth. The advice people give you on interacting with women is often very bad and will yield adverse outcomes. Knowledge of female mating instincts (when used judiciously) will aid you in finding and keeping a wife. You are not above these evo psych truths. They are at work whether you are conscious of them or not. Women, a woman looking for a mate for the night gives her id free rein but a women looking for a mate for life is… Read more »
I’ve several issues with “game”/”evolutionary psychology”. I think it makes some correct observations that are worth dealing with, even though they may be difficult to swallow given modern Western sensitivities, but from the little research, if you will, that I’ve done on it, mainly reading here and there writings of its proponents, it seems that the conclusions reached are exactly opposite of what the evidence might indicate. Disclaimer: I’m YEC, so I’m predisposed to reject anything based upon evolutionary premises, but I admit that the EP guys have developed their arguments more than I have mine. I think it was… Read more »
I don’t think you’re taking into account the extent to which these are instinctive drives more than rational behavior. The instinctive need to provide milk for my offspring doesn’t lead me to have sex in a convenience store, it drives me to be stimulated by large breasts. All sexual behavior is primarily driven by the instinct to reproduce. The historical fact of the pill is not (yet?) accounted for in my genome. If I go around with condoms in my wallet maybe that represents a rational decision not to have children but on a more primal level it represents a… Read more »
“If I go around with condoms in my wallet maybe that represents a rational decision not to have children but on a more primal level it represents a drive to reproduce.” Well, I think you’d have to get down and identify what *is* the basest of instincts; is reproduction at the bottom, or is a refusal to take responsibility and to deny the consequences of my actions? Sure, it *could* be that the reproductive instinct is driving the hypothetical man to have as much sex as possible, and the condoms in his wallet are merely a secondary issue tacked on… Read more »
But, it could also be that the basest of instincts (sin nature), is to
take what is not sanctioned for me to have (sex, unsanctioned outside
of marriage), and to do so in a way that I determine to minimally cost
me.
You offer an critical insight. let me add…
that I determine gives maximum benefit to me .
Some have zero compunction against it and see it as a ‘game’.
cheers.