Per Phi, premarital sex causes divorce! Well, it correlates with it, anyway. Basically, there is a positive correlation between the number of partners a woman has had before getting married and the likelihood of a divorce when married. Am I surprised? Not particularly. The virgin-married tend to be particularly religious, are actually observant of their religion, and likely to have significantly more impulse control and self-discipline than others. Of course, I wouldn’t have been particularly surprised the other way, either, given the correlation between young marriages and failure rates.

Here’s where you can say “Ah, but correlation does not equal causation!” While true, this is a bit of a copout. The correlation itself is significant especially when observed with overall trends of divorce rates and premarital sex over the decades. If the main goal is to prevent divorce, the casualization of premarital sex is pretty likely contrary to those aims. For the broader public, though, I question how realistically you can expect people to wait until their mid-to-late twenties before having sex. Some can do it. Most won’t regardless of the public pressures to do so. In order to attack B, you have to address A. It’s possible that without sex people would marry younger, but you have to re-order things around like the Mormons do in order for it to work. Hard to do outside a relatively insular religion.

But what does this mean, practically speaking? It might mean that, contrary to my outlook when I was single, that you should seek out people with fewer sexual partners. Or not have sex yourself. I have stated in the past that when I was single I would become concerned upon finding out that a person I was dating was a virgin. At least a couple were. The question for me is whether they were so due to a deeply held religious conviction or if they were off-put by the idea of sex generally. I was concerned of a woman in the latter category pretending it was the former. However, in the event that I was convinced otherwise (and in one case I was) I wouldn’t let the lack of sex prior to marriage stand in my way. Logistically speaking, though, my theory from having been burned is to look skeptically at women that are great for finding reasons not to be intimate with you (not just sex in this case). In particular, beware those that are “putting sex on hold for a while.” That’s something women often say when they are just trying to justify no sex with you. No sex with you is, of course, their right, but everybody needs to be clear on the “why” and not say “it’s not you, it’s me” when that’s not what they mean. Women may have to fear retaliation, but stringing a guy along (even if not being forthright about why she doesn’t want to be with the guy) is not a winning or fair strategy, either.

Of course, I am talking about two different things here. Back to the subject of genuine virgins. The biggest problem I faced was that those I knew were deeply religious and since I am not that is a problem in its own right. Carla met me at the apex of my religiosity, and even then I felt like there could be some problems in that area. And so if you’re a secular guy, your options are kind of limited as far as that goes. The middle-case scenario almost is somebody who has never had sex simply because they’ve never had access to it. Even that presents problems, unless the underlying reason they had such trouble with men (extreme introversion, anti-social tendencies, excessive weight) has been taken care of. Since men are less particular about sex (as opposed to actual relationships, where men can be just as particular or moreso), the reasons for a (non-religious) virgin woman are fewer than the inverse. The best-case scenario is a woman that has never had sex because she won’t have it outside a relationship and it’s the relationship she’s had trouble obtaining. I’ve not seen it since early college, but presumably it’s happened somewhere.


Category: Coffeehouse

About the Author


67 Responses to Premarital Sex & Divorce

  1. Transplanted Lawyer says:

    The question for me is whether they were so due to a deeply held religious conviction or if they were off-put by the idea of sex generally. I was concerned of a woman in the latter category pretending it was the former.

    Your experiences are very similar to what I recall of my own while dating. I was always worried that if religious (or other) attitudes steered my dating partner away from sex, they were really a cover for anxiety about sex or fear of intimacy — and if that were the case, not even marriage would resolve her tensions, resulting in a sexless marriage.

    The relationship between a) fear of emotional intimacy, b) anxiety about sex, and c) socialization about sex (whether religiously-derived or otherwise) is really complex and in a significant number of instances where I came across it, the issue seemed to be a chicken-and-egg problem. If physical intimacy (not necessarily sex) produced subsequent signs of strong guilt or regret, then that was something that told me my partner had not resolved this set of competing pressures in a way that was compatible with my own resolution of them and that the relationship was therefore doomed.

    Come to think of it, this sort of feedback loop of anxiety, fear, and socialization applies to masturbation too. How many teenagers (and even adults) are terrified of going to hell because they play with themselves once in a while? So it turns out, you don’t even need a partner to have a pleasure-produces-anxiety feedback complex.

  2. ? says:

    It’s worth noting that Social Pathologists says he observes the relationship independent of the subject’s religious opinions. I’m not good enough at stats to evalutate his claim, I just wanted to get it on record.

    Operationalizing this knowledge is tricky. Seizing on one stat won’t help you if all other factors combine to put you into that 19% of virgin marriages that fail anyway. And of course if you, like TL, wouldn’t be happy married to a religious woman (or a woman with whatever quality that drove the virginity), then it doesn’t really matter what the likelihood of divorce is: you’d still be miserable!

    But on the other hand, I’m detecting a lot of fuzziness in this commentary. Phrases like “off-put by the idea of sex generally”, “justify no sex with you”, and “anxiety about sex or fear of intimacy”. Now, I will admit that my own actual relationship experience wasn’t particularly broad, but these kind of hang-ups strike me as so 19th century. Are there really a lot of young women, even virgins, walking around in 2010 America that have these afflictions and yet enter into a chaste romance with you anyway? Really?

    But I will concede this: it is hard to imagine that the threat of reducing the probability for success of a relationship I don’t have yet would be sufficient motivation by itself to turn down sex with the woman standing in front of me now. That would require religion, social sanctions, and/or habit of mind.

  3. Maria says:

    Where’s the figure on the divorce prospects for “virgin grooms” or near-virgin grooms?

    Typical of the Gamebois to focus on female chastity while ignoring the same for men.

    Double Standards R US

  4. trumwill says:

    It’s worth noting that Social Pathologists says he observes the relationship independent of the subject’s religious opinions. I’m not good enough at stats to evalutate his claim, I just wanted to get it on record.

    He says that, and he says that this is true regardless of liberal social attitudes, but within the post he doesn’t demonstrate it. Beyond that, it’s difficult to impossible to control between hypocritical Southern Baptists and devout ones. And, of course, self-discipline and the lack thereof.

    I can imagine that if it were possible that if you take the same people, with the same beliefs, then put them in a situation where one has multiple sexual partners and the other has none, that you would still get a difference. I doubt that we’re going to see quite the differences that we’re seeing here, though.

    Now, I will admit that my own actual relationship experience wasn’t particularly broad, but these kind of hang-ups strike me as so 19th century. Are there really a lot of young women, even virgins, walking around in 2010 America that have these afflictions and yet enter into a chaste romance with you anyway? Really?

    This a concern I developed through experience (mostly second-hand, thankfully!). These attitudes are not nearly as prevalent as they used to be, but they do exist. Fear of intimacy. The subconscious belief that sexual enjoyment is wrong.

    Now, where I’ve seen this more often than not is among young women that do have sex, only rather rarely and always, always, always with extraordinary anxiety afterward (that keeps it rare). I had one friend that, for a while, was actually okay with not having sex anymore because it simply wasn’t worth the self-recriminations that always came afterward – even though she was not particularly religious.

    People are weird.

  5. trumwill says:

    Maria, among many in the Roissysphere, men who rack up large counts are as much the enemy as anyone else because they’re monopolizing the women. On the other hand, the blame for the large counts does typically go to the women who submit to them. It goes with the belief that women are naturally bound to be the sexual brakes.

  6. Transplanted Lawyer says:

    Maria, if you follow back from Phi’s link to Social Pathology and dig around a bit, you’ll find that Social Pathologist did examine premarital chastity and premarital promiscuity in men, and claims that he found no statistical difference in divorce rates for virgin and non-virgin grooms when he controlled for other factors like religion, education, and economic status.

    Where the Roissys of the world might find reason to rejoice at that, it seems uncomfortable and counter-intuitive to me. But I have not had anything like the time, nor a substantial enough training in sociology or statistics, to really dig into SP‘s methodology and offer an opinion about whether his conclusions are valid.

    But so what? Even if it is the case that there is a significant correlation between premarital sex and divorce among women but not men, that does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that women are properly classified into mutually exclusive Madonna and Whore classes. It does not suggest that women ruin themselves morally by having premarital sex while men do not.

    Let’s assume that this data conclusively proves that women who have premarital sex are more likely to get divorced later in life than ones who marry while virgins. SP assumes as self-evident the proposition that a low divorce rate is to be preferred to a high one. But it might be better to allow people to leave relationships that don’t work and seek ones that do, rather than using compelling social pressure to keep people in relationships that generate unhappiness. So it’s at least plausible to posit that a high divorce rate is a facet of a happy society and a low divorce rate a facet of an unhappy one, and therefore premarital sex benefits society at large, and abstinence is harmful.

    Even if we accept SP‘s conclusion, it does not prove that “Roissy is right.” It proves, at most, that men and women are somehow different from one another — and as the original post points out, it does not even articulate very well what that difference might be.

  7. trumwill says:

    Where the Roissys of the world might find reason to rejoice at that, it seems uncomfortable and counter-intuitive to me.

    Counterintuitive seems correct. I think Phi has previously linked to statistics suggesting that men who sleep with more women are more likely to cheat on their spouses. Phi, am I remembering that correctly?

    On the other hand, worth noting is that since women initiate most divorces, it could well be that female disposition matters more than male disposition when it comes to divorce rates.

    I reject the notion that a high divorce rate is the product of a healthy and happy society. Marriage should at least strongly imply permanence. High divorce rates mean where failing somewhere.

    There are also studies that strongly suggest that people that get divorced end up, on the net, unhappier than those that stick out unhappy marriages. I will do what I can to find them because it’s an interesting subject worthy of posts, but I don’t have them handy.

    Some level of divorce is relatively healthy. I think that number is well below current divorce rates, however.

  8. Meadowlark says:

    Beyond that, it’s difficult to impossible to control between hypocritical Southern Baptists and devout ones.

    Should you have to, though? I mean, people claiming to be devout (to a socially conservative religion) represents conservative social attitudes whether they live up to these ideals or not.

    Otherwise, It’s pretty circular. You determine liberal social attitudes based on whether they have lots of premarital sex. Then blame the premarital sex on the liberal social attitudes.

  9. trumwill says:

    Lark, you are quite correct. I retract my statement about that. If he did indeed control for state religious attitudes, then his work there is done. There’s not much more you can do.

  10. Maria says:

    5.Maria, among many in the Roissysphere, men who rack up large counts are as much the enemy as anyone else because they’re monopolizing the women.

    No true, they lionize those men, because they hope to be like them some day (kind of like the poor guy who idolizes Donald Trump.)

    It’s obvious to me that the Gamebois are scared that the double standard is depriving them of their age-old male privileges, i.e. no social sanction for “sowing their wild oats” and then they get to have their virgin bride when they are tired of oat-sowing and want a family.

    It’s kind of funny to me that they bitterly resent women who have the same type of mating strategy as they do.

    But as I said before, Double Standards R Us.

  11. Maria says:

    Sorry, that didn’t come out right. It should read: “It’s obvious to me that the Gamebois are scared that the relaxation of the double standard is depriving them of their age-old male privileges. . .”

    Men really do love the sexual double standard, don’t they?

  12. trumwill says:

    Maria, I just don’t read it the same way you do. I read the Roissyites of being primarily bitter. Bitter that some other is getting all the chicks. When they talk about “de facto polygamy” they’re not saying “Good for those few men!” but rather “Goddammit, this sucks for the rest of us!” They read Roissy because he validates this view. The admiration I see is mostly in his telling “truth to power” and the fact that he is sleeping with these women and hating them at the same time.

    I see more discontent with the system (as they see it) than anything. The problem is that (a) they’re not seeing things as they are and (b) they’re placing all of the blame for everything on “women” and “feminists”.

  13. trumwill says:

    Oh, I meant to add one more thing: I’m not saying that the Roissyites are not guilty of double standards (though I quibble about men in generally being particularly susceptible to double standards). I have pointed out numerous time that Roissy and many of his followers are of the mind that whenever a man steps out on a woman she is at fault because she (usually consciously) married the kind of guy that steps out on women but that women a woman leaves a man it’s because she’s a heartless shrew and a black hole of a person.

    Even on this subject, I think that they’re guilty of assuming that women are to blame for the behavior of women (they’re sleeping around and it’s ruining everything!) and for the behavior of men (they’re rewarding men who sleep around!).

  14. ? says:

    On the other hand, worth noting is that since women initiate most divorces, it could well be that female disposition matters more than male disposition when it comes to divorce rates.

    Exactly, and I want to make this explicit. I think we can take for granted that no man gets married to a woman in the expectation that she will leave him. Taken at face value, these stats indicate that a woman with a high partner count is substantially more likely to leave him. That’s an important consideration for him irrespective of what he thinks about feminism, “game”, or what-have-you.

    I reject the notion that a high divorce rate is the product of a healthy and happy society. Marriage should at least strongly imply permanence. High divorce rates mean where failing somewhere.

    Right again! Sexual messiness of all sorts generates negative externalities. That you aren’t “happy” because your wife isn’t as supple as she was before that last child is too frickin’ bad!

    Trumwill: I think you describe pretty accurately Roissy’s relationship with a lot of his readers, including, perhaps, me. I just want to point out that Roissy himself has repeatedly counseled how destructive bitterness is.

  15. ? says:

    Now, where I’ve seen this more often than not is among young women that do have sex, only rather rarely and always, always, always with extraordinary anxiety afterward (that keeps it rare).

    Well, partner count is not the same thing as frequency. A woman who only has sex once a year could still be in the 10+ partner category before she turns 30.

    But I can see how such a woman might come to feel that the sex itself was dirty (because, for her, it was), and that this might lead to frigidity even after marriage. If the quality of your married sex life is the primary consideration, then you’d want a study that plots this factor against partner count.

  16. trumwill says:

    I primarily mention her as an example of how sex-shame persists well past the 19th century. Her applicability to the subject as a whole is mixed. On the one hand, you’re right that her “count” could be rather high*. It’s just that one of the things I think of is how she could have simply claimed to not believe in premarital sex and her future husband would have had any idea that there were serious hangups until it was too late.

    I’ve also known at least a couple of religious girls who were “saving themselves” who really seemed to have hangups. Others that were saving themselves that I believed were more genuine. But when considering it, I realized that a lot of it was guesswork. And that it’s an easy thing to hide behind, if you were so inclined.

    I think I’ve said before that no-sex-before-marriage wouldn’t actually be a dealbreaker. But it would be cause for concern and investigation. If I determined that it was really on the up-and-up, I would proceed. Cautiously, probably looking for the sorts of signs that TL talks about. Do they have guilt issues? What do they think sex is, anyway? Stuff like that.

    I know guys that have hid behind religion as a mask for the fact that they couldn’t get laid if their life depended on it. That sort of thing.

    * – She and my friend were together for four years. I think her relationship before that was another four-year stretch. Thinking her and Julianne (me=4yrs, Tony=4yrs), it sure does seem like there’s something about four years. Like it takes precisely that long for a relationship that won’t progress to collapse under its own weight.

  17. ? says:

    I’ve also known at least a couple of religious girls who were “saving themselves” who really seemed to have hangups . . . . I know guys that have hid behind religion as a mask for the fact that they couldn’t get laid if their life depended on it.

    This is a little more complicated than you seem to think. It kind of goes to what I meant by “habit of mind.” The prospect of having sex for the first time can be a little frightening, if that’s the word, for a lot of women and even some men. (I would say that this was the case for Mrs. ?.) Meanwhile, the lack of sexual experience itself can be a handicap for men; they’re not out practicing game (or whatever), and they may not even be circulating in the kind of environments where people are hooking up. So there is kind of a feedback loop going on. But this doesn’t mean that their “hang-ups”, if that’s the word, should be expected to persist once they are married and having sex regularly.

    But if you’re saying it should be expected, or has a higher probability among virgins than among sluts, well, show me a study. Because whatever its limitations, that’s what Social Pathologist did. We can’t just answer it with speculation and a couple of anecdotes.

  18. trumwill says:

    I’m not really disputing SP’s findings. I believe that there is, at the very least, a correlation between previous sexual partners and likelihood of divorce.

    I don’t really know what is expected or not vis-a-vis sexual hangups and virginity. I do know what is feared.

    On the question of divorce, the main question I have is “What is their attitude towards marriage?” That was a test that, for instance, Clancy passed and Evangeline failed. On the sex-after-marriage question, I approach it in a similar way. What are their attitudes towards sex? Tangentially, if they cite God as their reason for abstaining, how is their relationship with God? How sincere are they in their faith?

    There may be a lot of false positives insofar as women who express great apprehension but who would acclimate themselves to it very quickly. It’s possible that my friend’s ex, once in the safety and security of marriage, would totally change her tune.

    But, the absence of a desire to have sex prior to marriage remained a warning flag with me (and still would if I were single). Not of divorce (which is what SP is looking at), but rather of an unsatisfactory marriage (for which there are no studies controlling for the variable that is the man in the marriage being me or someone like me).

    My perspective may not be right for everyone, but I don’t think it’s wrong for people coming from where I am coming from. For people coming from where you are coming from, I would render quite different advice (and, in fact, have). My perspective is a response to my particular situation (and people with outlooks similar to mine).

    Regarding men, you don’t have to convince me about negative feedback loops and the like. Not knowing how to deal with women means not getting experiences with women on how to interact with women. It’s something I’ve always been behind the curve on (though, I will certainly concede, ahead of a lot of other people). I mainly bring it up as an example that people are often not honest with themselves about their motivations.

  19. ? says:

    Sorry, my point was that living a Christian life is more than just resolving not to have premarital sex. It’s living in such a way as to reduce the temptation/opportunity to sin on a day-to-day basis.

    But I will concede the point that someone doing that may in fact have other impediments they won’t admit or even know about. And of course anyone’s claim to living a Christian life must be examined in the light of their actual behavior

  20. Maria says:

    Phi: How do you reconcile living a Christian life with being a Roissy fanboy?

  21. Sexy Pterodactyl says:

    @Phi:

    1) You’ve written some prior stuff putting down females (Christian females in particular) for being too uppity to provide you with easy Sexytime during your single days

    2) At the same time, such provisioners would be (per your post that’s the topic here) devalued for marriage

    3) And per your other writing, females should be all about marriage and definitely _not_ career.

    Combining 1,2 and 3, I think we’ve answered Maria’s question: it’s about Defeating Females/the Perfidious Slut Matrix is it not?

    Yay! We alpha male pterodactyls are all for it 🙂 Will you blog-link me?

    War on Bitches,
    Sexy P

  22. trumwill says:

    You’ve written some prior stuff putting down females (Christian females in particular) for being too uppity to provide you with easy Sexytime during your single days

    You’re mistaken. He’s complained about frigidity (towards him) before, but in the context of traditional courtship, not “sexytime”.

  23. Brendan says:

    I am also a Christian who reads and gets quite a bit from Roissy’s site.

    How?

    Well, obviously not by being a PUA! But the insights into female behavior and sexual/relational psychology are very valuable for any kind of relationship, including a committed Christian one. That doesn’t mean that a Christian man could, or should, “run full-blown Roissy style Game” on his girlfriend or wife — much of the PUA game discussed there is applicable in certain settings and not in that one. However the general principles are pretty much applicable to successful relationships with women across the board, and can be integrated into a more holistic approach to relating to women just as well for Christian men as they can for any other kinds of men.

    In addition, I think Roissy’s diagnosis of what has happened with the relationship marketplace in the larger cities of the U.S. (where I have spent most of my years) is spot-on, as well as his broader commentary about the short and long-term effects of this.

    All of this is interesting and useful. Of course, I do not condone the lifestyle recommended by his blog, nor his own lifestyle choices, for moral reasons. But having said that, there is still much useful to be found there for the reflective man.

    ======

    As for the issue here, I think that the main counterargument you’ll find being raised is the one Transplanted Lawyer raised — namely that we shouldn’t view divorce as “failure”, but rather as “success”, because it frees people up for further happiness. I’ve seen that argued with a straight face last year in the feminist blog XX about some or other feminist woman’s divorce. The main problem with this (other than the basic problem of having turned marriage on its head by means of a semantic trick) is that it doesn’t really address adequately (or at all) the negative impact of divorce on children, and, due to widespread divorce, the aggregate negative impact on society as a whole due to the aggregate of the negative impacts on a substantial number of children. I think it’s very dangerous for a society to assume that high divorce rates — with all of the social, emotional and child-related costs that go along with that — to be on aggregate a good thing for the society as a whole.

  24. Maria says:

    However the general principles are pretty much applicable to successful relationships with women across the board, and can be integrated into a more holistic approach to relating to women just as well for Christian men as they can for any other kinds of men.

    What part of that is applicable to the successful relationships with women?

    Hitting your wife or girlfriend to get her “excited”?
    Cheating on your wife or girlfriend to “raise your value” in her eyes?
    “Training” women like dogs, and thinking of them in this manner?

    Do explain. Inquiring minds want to know.

  25. Maria says:

    Combining 1,2 and 3, I think we’ve answered Maria’s question: it’s about Defeating Females/the Perfidious Slut Matrix is it not?

    Yup, for a lot of the Gamebois it’s about reasserting traditional male sexual privileges, dressed up in fancy language touting the benefits for society at large.

    You can’t blame them for being resentful at the current situation. Who wouldn’t want to have the freedom to sow their wild oats without condemnation, and then settle down with their “untouched” partner to lead a good Christian life when they get older?

    If they would only proudly admit their hypocrisy, it wouldn’t be so galling, but then agin, if they admitted their hypocrisy,that would be a bad example for the females they hope will remain “untouched” enough to be their brides, would it not?

    That’s why men have relied on older women to police the younger women since time immemorial. It doesn’t help their dual mating strategy when a vicious manslut like Roissy presumes to lecture young women about chastity — they need Aunt Mildred clucking her disapproval for that part of the equation to work.

  26. Dawgman says:

    [i]Hitting your wife or girlfriend to get her “excited”?
    Cheating on your wife or girlfriend to “raise your value” in her eyes?
    “Training” women like dogs, and thinking of them in this manner?[/i]

    Who advocates hitting your wife/gf?
    The most I hear about this in the community is the playful taps at best.

    Who advocates cheating?
    The most anyone says about this is slight flirting with another girl.

    Training women like dogs? Well, you actually have a point there(But I’ve only seen one post), but it rings hollow when you see women try to do the same exact thing with men and it’s glorified.

    And even with that point, it’s still solid advice or not putting up with things many women do. Largely not letting your women… or dog, walk all over you.

    AND, of the above three things, all of the extreme elements are confined to the outskirts of the “Gamebois”(As you put it) community. And infact are not looked well upon by many.
    The mindset is that, if you have to hit a woman, she’s not worth it and If you have to cheat on her, it’s better to just break up. For the most part, there are plenty of women in the sea and it’s just not worth it to get that angry over one, until she killed your dog, loved one, or purposely destroyed something of extreme value to you.

  27. Maria says:

    Who advocates hitting your wife/gf?

    Roissy

    Who advocates cheating?

    Roissy

    Training women like dogs? Well, you actually have a point there(But I’ve only seen one post), but it rings hollow when you see women try to do the same exact thing with men and it’s glorified.

    Okay, you admit it.

    The mindset is that, if you have to hit a woman, she’s not worth it

    You mean, because she’s not acting dog-like enough? Yeah, I guess so. In that case it’s better to go out and get another “dog” rather than put up with a disobediant one you actually have to hit in order to get her to obey you.

    And Gamebois wonder why women are turned off by their views!

  28. Dawgman says:

    Let’s try the italics one more time.

    Roissy
    Find a post where he advocates beating your gf/wife.

    Find one where he advocates that. Pretty sure he rarely advocates cheating and downright prefers you let the girl now your situation.

    The burden of proof is on you Maria.

    You mean, because she’s not acting dog-like enough? Yeah, I guess so. In that case it’s better to go out and get another “dog” rather than put up with a disobediant one you actually have to hit in order to get her to obey you.
    Yes. Although I prefer calling them women and not dogs, but if you want to call em that, fine.

    Why stick with a woman who annoys you so much? What’s the point? Find someone who doesn’t make you want to punch the everliving daylights out of her. Find someone who makes your life like heaven, not hell.
    This is the point.

    But instead of understanding what I mean, you decide to take it and twist it to make it sound worse than it actually is. So the man decides to find a girl that doesn’t make him want to hurt her….

    HOW IS THAT BAD?!

  29. Maria says:

    Find a post where he advocates beating your gf/wife.

    There’s one linked on this very blog, a post put up by Sheila Tone some months ago. Search for it — I’m not going to do your work for you.

    Find one where he advocates that. Pretty sure he rarely advocates cheating and downright prefers you let the girl now your situation.

    Do your own footwork, again I’m not going to search for you.

    Why stick with a woman who annoys you so much? What’s the point? Find someone who doesn’t make you want to punch the everliving daylights out of her. Find someone who makes your life like heaven, not hell.
    This is the point.

    But instead of understanding what I mean, you decide to take it and twist it to make it sound worse than it actually is. So the man decides to find a girl that doesn’t make him want to hurt her….

    Most men who hit wives/girlfriends will hit/abuse any woman he’s with, no matter how “obediant” she is. That is the profile of the classic abuser. It sounds to me like you are one of them, actually.

    They always believe that the woman “made” them abuse her.

  30. Dawgman says:

    Do your own footwork, again I’m not going to search for you.

    It’s not my footwork. YOU are the one making the accusation. So YOU should be the one to present evidence. In the court of law, it’s the prosecutor’s job to provide evidence to the defendant’s guilt. If the prosecutor can’t do that, the prosecutor has failed.
    You = Prosecutor

    Try again.

    Most men who hit wives/girlfriends will hit/abuse any woman he’s with, no matter how “obediant” she is. That is the profile of the classic abuser. It sounds to me like you are one of them, actually.

    They always believe that the woman “made” them abuse her.

    Heh, is that an attack to my character now? Don’t worry, I don’t bite. I make it a rule to never hang around girls that annoy me that much. Why waste my time and energy being angry when I could be having fun.

    But what you said is a moot point. No one advocates physically hitting another girl. Why bother? It’s waste of energy, it could land you in jail, and it’s just not how a man should do things. If she’s making you that angry, time to find a chick that is actually FUN to be around.

  31. Maria says:

    That’s the one I was thinking of.

    You squeeze your grip on her forearm tighter and address her louder than before.

    That’s not advocating phyiscal violence, Will?

    Dawgman — Roissy did say he hit a girlfriend and made many other comments regarding enjoying physically abusing women.

    I don’t want to go over there to hunt those posts up because a) he took a lot of those types of posts down when his identity was exposed by Lady Raine and b) visiting that site literally makes me physically ill.

    I know what I read when his posts were linked on other blogs, and what many other people have commented about seeing on his blog, too.

    As for your other comments, they speak for themselves. I think they validate the sickness of the Roissysphere rather well.

  32. Dawgman says:

    That’s not advocating phyiscal violence, Will?

    Not Will, but no, that’s not physical violence. Punching her, kicking her, burning her, that such is violence.

    Holding her forearm tighter is not. That’s a stretch Maria, you should know that.

    I’ve read through it all his posts, and at NO point saw anything about abusing women from him. The most you would ever get is a comment like the above, and even that was rare. Like I said, if you want to prove to me that he was advocating violence, you’ll have to prove it. It doesn’t matter if going to his site makes you sick(Suck it up). Or if he removed most of his more of his brazen posts,(Google Cached, archive.org, etc).

    YOU are the one making the accusation and YOU should have evidence to back it up. Which sadly, you seem to be lacking. I was hoping you’d have more. Would have been interesting, but you don’t, so bleh.

    As for my comments validating some sickness. Whatever helps you sleep at night. But I see nothing wrong with anything I said. I see no sickness. Would you care to at least point THAT out?

  33. Maria says:

    Okay, I think Escapist has some links to his posts where he advocated hitting women. I’ll go look on her blog for them.

    You admitted you advocate treating women like dogs — that is the sickness I was referring to.

  34. Dawgman says:

    Okay, I think Escapist has some links to his posts where he advocated hitting women. I’ll go look on her blog for them.

    Good, I await your evidence.

    You admitted you advocate treating women like dogs — that is the sickness I was referring to.

    No, I didn’t advocate anything. I merely said I heard something like what you said. From here:
    http://www.inmalafide.com/2010/06/29/the-wife-whisperer/
    A guest post at In Mala Fide, By a woman.

  35. Dawgman says:

    Let me rephrase. The only time I advocate treating a woman like a dog is when she’s acting like a bitch(The author is welcome to censor the word is they so wish.)

  36. Maria says:

    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/shocker-beautiful-woman-chooses-man-who-beats-her-silly/

    choice quotes:

    “A hit across the face, because it is an unabashed demonstration of male power, will trigger stronger orgasms in many otherwise normal women. I have observed this phenomenon myself. Think of a slap as Viagra for women. Lubed up for a long evening of hot sex!”

    In the comments someone references a post Roissy made about “backhanding” his girlfriend. He linked to that post in the quote above, but then took it down.

    He hit a girlfriend and bragged about it, but was too cowardly to leave the post up.

  37. trumwill says:

    There was actually a movie that came out at some point about a woman who finds a book on dog-training and starts applying the lessons (very effectively) on her husband. If anyone can identify this movie, I’d greatly appreciate it. A couple people I know have seen it, but nobody can remember the name of it.

  38. Lady Raine says:

    The problem with this is that MOST marriages made at a young age end in divorce. Around 80% or so whether the partners were virgins or not.

    That’s a pretty crappy odd to take JUST to marry a virgin AND to forego things as important as education and career (on both sides) to take that risk.

    And since both men and women are waiting until at least their mid-twenties to early-thirties to marry….that would mean a lot of 25-35 year old virgins roaming around and that would just be….bizarre.

    I daresay that would be FAR more unhealthy and cause marriage-related problems because now you have a case of two people who waited until they were practically middle-aged to have sex…and now have this idealized idea of how “awesome” this marriage/sex is going to be. I suspect most would be angry and disappointed and say “Is this what I waited so long for?”

    While the sentiment is nice…I think most women and men would rather experiment sexually in their youth and 20’s and then then about marriage after which they’ll still have better odds (50%) of staying together than if they’d have married as young virgins (80%).

    So the only way this theory would work out is if men and women LITERALLY stayed virgins until an older age when its less risky (and they’re more mature) to marry (say 28-32) AND just happened to be totally fulfilled and delighted by their partner and their marriage AND not have any “sexual hang ups” because of having no previous sexual experience.

    Sorry, but that just isn’t a rational or reasonable quest to be on and is far riskier overall…than just doing what normal people do: date around in your youth, get some experience and maturity, and then eventually find someone with similar life interests as yourself (if looking to settle down).

    The other options are a trainwreck waiting to happen.

    *My own parents were virgins at marriage, are still married today…but have a cold, vapid marriage with zero affection and pretty much sleep in separate rooms because they have so little interest in each other. They don’t fight or argue and there’s no “underlying issues” or anything…AND they are devoutly religious. It didn’t seem to give them anything close to a happy life or happy marriage. I’d rather end up alone with 30,000 cats then end up like them, quite honestly.*

  39. Maria says:

    Dawgman, that was not the post I was referring to. Roissy wrote a post called “Owning a Woman is Like Owning a Dog.” But I’m not surprised that you slum over at the In Malodorous Filth sewer.

    Here’s the dog-owning post (one he didn’t take down, surprise surprise): http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/owning-a-dog-is-training-for-owning-a-woman/

    Here’s the post about hitting women:

    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/shocker-beautiful-woman-chooses-man-who-beats-her-silly/

    “A hit across the face, because it is an unabashed demonstration of male power, will trigger stronger orgasms in many otherwise normal women. I have observed this phenomenon myself. Think of a slap as Viagra for women. Lubed up for a long evening of hot sex!”

    In that post he linked to a former post where he admitted that he “backhanded” one of his girlfriends. He took that post down when he purged a lot of stuff after the Lady Raine incident, but a commenter in the comment box references it, so we know it was there at one time.

  40. Maria says:

    I actually posted this last night, don’t know what happened to my previous comment.

    Is there moderation here now?

  41. Maria says:

    Oh wait, my post last night did take. I missed it above. Sorry for the repost!

  42. no more mr nice guy says:

    One problem with studies like that is that very few people marry virgin and when they do it, it’s for religious reasons. Therefore we can presume that if they don’t divorce, it’s not because they were virgin when they married, it’s because they are religious. I don’t think that the divorce rate among Hasidic Jews is very high and it’s not because they are virgins when they marry it’s because they are very religious.

  43. Dawgman says:

    Trumwill: “If A Man Answers…”
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056093/
    I thought it would be more recent. But it might not be the only movie with the same premise. I remember one that came out in the 90s. But it was never on my list of movies I should see.

    Dawgman, that was not the post I was referring to. Roissy wrote a post called “Owning a Woman is Like Owning a Dog.” But I’m not surprised that you slum over at the In Malodorous Filth sewer.”

    Thank you Maria. I was hoping you do your work and I’m glad you did. This will be fun. But could you refrain from messing with the name of the site. It seems childish.

    Like I said before, It’s kinda hard to take you seriously when there are numerous sites detailing training a man like a dog too.
    http://fooyoh.com/iamchiq_living_sexualrelationship/4662798
    http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/23127234 (Actually, there’s a book!)
    I’m sure you can google for more.

    But, saying the other person does it too isn’t a sound argument. You think training a woman like a dog is sick. But you are looking at it WRONG. You are focusing too much on the ‘dog’ part and not enough on the actual steps/instructions. For example:

    “Like dogs, women respond best to strong verbal and nonverbal commands. If you stare down a dog, it will always turn away first, if it recognizes your authority. Women will do the same.”

    This is without a doubt true. But not just for women, for men too(To a lesser extent though, a male is more likely to physically challenge your authority if in the proper context.)

    This kinda of thinking and training works for the most part since we are animals as well.

    It has alot to do with psychology. Watch some animal planet or something similar. You can often see some social constructs that occur with other animals occur with humans too.

    (I could go hugely indepth about this though. I’m actually cutting a few things in my comment because it’s making it loooong and I’m not here to teach you the similarities between dogs/cats/animals and humans)

    “Here’s the post about hitting women:

    “A hit across the face, because it is an unabashed demonstration of male power, will trigger stronger orgasms in many otherwise normal women. I have observed this phenomenon myself. Think of a slap as Viagra for women. Lubed up for a long evening of hot sex!”

    In that post he linked to a former post where he admitted that he “backhanded” one of his girlfriends. He took that post down when he purged a lot of stuff after the Lady Raine incident, but a commenter in the comment box references it, so we know it was there at one time.”

    That’s not advocating anything. Explaining, yes, but not advocating. He’s not telling you to go hit women.
    As for the link, shame it was deleted. But I think I remember that one. He never advocated it then either. He did explained that he DID hit a girlfriend. But never explained the reason why.(‘Why” is important. While you should never resort to violence, sometimes it understandable to lash out in anger. For example, having a your dog killed by someone you trust and hitting them in a fit of anger. Or seeing your spouse cheat on you and lashing out on both the cheater and his/her accomplice) It’s easy to say you should never hit a person, it’s harder to put into practice when you are in the heat of the moment and your emotions are pulling a roller coaster.

    And often, people will understand why you hit the other person, and even believe he/she had it coming. It really depends on the context. And Roissy never gave it. So unfortunetly, we must move that to the side until we find the context to accurate judge it.

  44. trumwill says:

    Is there moderation here now?

    Right now, any comment with a link goes through moderation. The good news is that I get notifications and can pass through comments on my phone, so it generally doesn’t take long.

    Basically, I got slammed a week ago and three weeks ago by spam containing only one link. I need to update the Comments NOTE. Actually, I need to upgrade WordPress. I’m running a really old version.

  45. trumwill says:

    Nomore, Social Pathologist claims that religious inclination has been controlled for. I’m not sure of the methodology. See Phi’s comment, my response to it, and Meadowlark’s response to me.

    There’s no way to control for religious sincerity (ie someone that is genuinely religious versus someone that is basically hypocritical), nor other traits such as impulsiveness. But if SP did indeed control for religious attitudes, then we’re left with the conclusion that religious sincerity on premarital sex and/or divorce have a positive influence on relationship outcomes (assuming that we consider lower rates of divorce to be a good thing).

  46. trumwill says:

    The problem with this is that MOST marriages made at a young age end in divorce. Around 80% or so whether the partners were virgins or not.

    Judging by this statistic, though, you would think that virgin marriages would cause higher instances of divorce simply due to the correlation with age. That’s the problem with your 80%-50% comparison. It’s possible that the 80% figure is driven largely by those with promiscuous pre-marital habits. Or that there is a large distinction between those who marry REALLY young (17-20) and those who marry somewhat young (21-24).

    Sorry, but that just isn’t a rational or reasonable quest to be on and is far riskier overall…than just doing what normal people do: date around in your youth, get some experience and maturity, and then eventually find someone with similar life interests as yourself (if looking to settle down).

    But as society has shifted in this direction, marriage failure rates grew. And, it’s worth noting, that marriage failure rates in Utah, despite pretty strong social pressure to get married young in the Church.

    It is a point worth making, though, that outside Mormondom our social institutions are pretty inhospitable to young marriage. If society wants to really push people to get married virgins, you need to help them accomplish getting married younger. This is something that the LDS Church does reasonably well. The universities in Utah and Idaho are quite marriage-and-kid friendly in terms of housing and class schedules.

  47. trumwill says:

    Dawgman, I was with you on the arm-squeezing not qualifying as advocating violence, but this:

    That’s not advocating anything. Explaining, yes, but not advocating. He’s not telling you to go hit women.
    As for the link, shame it was deleted. But I think I remember that one. He never advocated it then either. He did explained that he DID hit a girlfriend. But never explained the reason why.

    is weak sauce. He places himself as a role model of sorts on how to treat women and become successful with them. If he did it and he doesn’t regret it, he’s effectively advocating it as far as I am concerned.

    And when it comes to this, the “why” is not particularly important. I mean, it’s possible that he had a good reason (she was assaulting him with a frying pan), but if you’re talking about hitting women, you explain why the hell you did it. If he doesn’t explain, we are free to draw our own conclusions.

    Suggesting that it’s okay to hit women “when they have it coming” or “in the heat of the moment” is suggesting that it’s okay to hit women when you feel like it because the first is subjective and the second is variable depending on one’s own inability to control one’s anger.

  48. Escapist (Sexy Pterodactyl's typist) says:

    I’m going to go ahead and agree with Lady Raine on this one (re experience and marriage), although arguably it’s not in my interest (as one of the elusive-yet-suspect inexperienced) to do so.

    After all, the Aunt Mildred Submissive Helpmeet Squadron route is the route to Roissysphere acceptance and Good Women Who Are Not Like Those Other Bitches status, is it not?

    Sexy Pterodactyl’s advice: Focus on becoming successful, Sexytime (or not) is the dessert in life – not an indicator of your character or human value, despite what the Phi crowd say.

    Hugs,
    Escapist

    P.S. Attention Roissy-ites, the gist of my blogpost series “Really a Man” is: your prospective “nice virgin brides” think you ain’t poopies either

  49. Dawgman says:

    is weak sauce. He places himself as a role model of sorts on how to treat women and become successful with them. If he did it and he doesn’t regret it, he’s effectively advocating it as far as I am concerned.

    I don’t think many of Roissy’s fans consider him a role model(You can’t really place yourself as a role model, you just are.). But I largely speak for myself. I know I can’t copy him and expect much. I merely see what would fit with my personality and beliefs and adjust accordingly.

    Too many people in the community try to emulate 100% everything they are taught though. Or rather, too many people believe you should emulate 100% what someone does.

    As for him effectively advocating. Eh. You’re welcome to disagree, but I still don’t think he’s advocating it. He’s not saying you should hit girls. I just don’t see it that way, but I at least can understand how you see it another way.


    And when it comes to this, the “why” is not particularly important. I mean, it’s possible that he had a good reason (she was assaulting him with a frying pan), but if you’re talking about hitting women, you explain why the hell you did it. If he doesn’t explain, we are free to draw our own conclusions.

    Suggesting that it’s okay to hit women “when they have it coming” or “in the heat of the moment” is suggesting that it’s okay to hit women when you feel like it because the first is subjective and the second is variable depending on one’s own inability to control one’s anger.
    I’m not saying it’s okay, just that it would be understandable given the right context. And I don’t limit myself to women. Hitting people would be wrong, but sometimes, you would understand it given the right situation.
    The disappointing thing is. We don’t know why, and he has every right not to tell us why. It could very well be something too personal or embarrassing. And while anyone is welcome to guess the reason why he hit her, we can’t truly come to a proper conclusion without a heavy dose of bias for one way or another. I could say the girl killed his dog, and someone else could say she didn’t make his sandwich right and it would not further the debate.

    Sometimes, beating women works(I’m horrible!). It’s not right, but I’ve seen far too many times where the woman just walks right back to the same abusive guy(invites him back even). You see it in real life, you see it in COPS. I’ve even heard a girl tell me she prefer her men that way(Yes, I went WTF too after hearing that) Sometimes, being with an abusive man is their fetish. And if that’s what they want, they’ll get it, if not from you, than from someone else.

  50. trumwill says:

    Sometimes, beating women works(I’m horrible!). It’s not right, but I’ve seen far too many times where the woman just walks right back to the same abusive guy(invites him back even).

    I may have more to say later, but when you say it’s “not right” are you referring to what she wants, him giving it to her, or both? In the event that it’s the first, why bring this up?

    Some people like to cut themselves. Is it appropriate to try to get them to seek help, ignore them, or graciously get them a razor?

  51. Dawgman says:

    I may have more to say later, but when you say it’s “not right” are you referring to what she wants, him giving it to her, or both? In the event that it’s the first, why bring this up?

    Some people like to cut themselves. Is it appropriate to try to get them to seek help, ignore them, or graciously get them a razor?

    Both in a way. It’s merely my opinion on the matter. It’s like the scat fetish for me. I’m not about to participate in it, nor am I going to date someone who would. At the same time. I know it’s quite disgusting and destructive. But I’m not about to try too hard helping a person that doesn’t want my help and enjoys their fetish.

    Same with cutting themselves. While I would like to help. I’m not about to go out of my way to help every person that’s cutting themselves. Sometimes, you have to leave them alone and let them bleed. Some people just don’t want help.

  52. Lady Raine says:

    Trumwill–

    My point on the young marriage is that it seems that divorce is simply easier these days for both men and women and people who are unhappy in their marriages are electing to have them whether they marry young, religious, and virginal….or whether they marry older, slutty, and atheist.

    While I’m sure varying religious beliefs are a huge factor in NOT getting divorced, staying together is also not an indicator of “happily married” vs “sadly divorced”.

    The virgins who were religious and stayed married JUST to avoid divorce are likely to be just as “miserable” as the non-virgins who married, divorced, and then were “miserable” later on down the road for similar….but not identical reasons.

    People used to be coerced to marry. Therefore they were coerced not to divorce. Now people are not coerced to marry and therefore are not coerced to STAY married, either.

    There was never some “golden age of happy marriage”…just less divorce stats and drama over the matter. Many women suffered under cruel, cheating, or abusive husbands and many men suffered similar fates when they could not divorce.

    The statistical rate itself is not an indicator of fidelity, sluttiness, virginity, nor age in terms of “what is best for an ideal marriage”.

    We can only speculate and speculation is the sister of myth more often than not.

  53. Lady Raine says:

    Dawg–

    There is never a good excuse other than self-defense to hit a domestic partner. Not a single one. And certainly not an “understandable” one.

    Adults are responsible for their actions and reactions to what others do/say to them. If they are SO lacking in discipline that they can be “driven” to hit someone, then they have no place as free men and women on the streets. It’s pretty simple.

    More importantly, there are rare few cases (regarding specifically domestic violence) where a man/woman lashes out just ONCE because of an isolated and extraordinary event. That’s why your excusing it is so ludicrous.

    Abusers are people who have control issues and use physical and verbal intimidation as a way to validate their “power” over their partner and also to control them.

    There are almost always repeated events of verbal abuse, physical intimidation, and then the escalation to actual physical violence. It’s a chain reaction and Domestic Abusers typically CONTINUE to stay abusive for that reason.

    They are not just normal people who “lost it” once in an extraordinary situation.

    It’s not the same as a heated street fight over a taxi or a well-placed slap at the man who grabbed the stranger’s ass in the bar.

    Not only is hitting a woman/man illegal and WRONG no matter WHAT the reason….using violence and intimidation against the person you are intimate with specifically, is a serious psychological problem…not this “isolated incident” you seem to want to make it.

    Abusers see their intimate partners as prey. They will go through the motions of all the cliches you hear about: charming them first, showing them undying love and devotion, slowly convincing them their friends and family don’t “love” them as much as they do, verbal abuse/intimidation when they don’t behave accordingly, threats of violence, and then eventually physical violence.

    The only time an abuser “lashes out and hits once” is when the OTHER person was smart enough to leave after the first time.

    Go look at some stats and try to find some people arrested for domestic abuse who NEVER had any other record of violence, threats, intimidation, or verbal abuse/rage problems specifically regarding intimate partners.

    You’ll find very few if any.

    These things are not freak incidents 99% of the time. They are simply abusers who hadn’t gotten caught yet.

    You say there are “understandable” instances. There are not. The reason the law agrees with this (outside of self defense, of course) is because a Domestic Abuser will ALWAYS have a ‘reason’ in their minds to “lash out” violently or attempt to lash out. They will NEVER accept the blame themselves and that’s why you hear the famous “Well if you didn’t make me so angry, I wouldn’t HAVE to hit you” or “Well if you didn’t nag so much, I wouldn’t act that way”

    These people have patterns that have nothing to do with “losing it” once in awhile. They actively look for a reason to harm the people they are most intimate with and choose to do so for a reason: they are serial criminals who will and DO escalate their crimes each time and with every new person they date/marry.

    Roissy specifically shows that he is a serial abuser both verbally and physically and obviously didn’t just ‘lash out’ since he’s recounted more than ONE instance of hitting a girlfriend who was NOT actively trying to murder him AND felt casual/comfortable enough with it to NOT feel guilty, NOT keep it a secret, and even SHARE IT with the world as if it’s “normal” male behavior.

    It is not. People who excuse that behavior and refuse to see the patterns in those types of people are just as harmful as the abusers themselves because they deny factual evidence, statistical crime data, and professional criminal profiling that tells us these things about Domestic Abuse/Abusers.

    An adult is responsible for their reaction to another adult. Period. “Lashing out” is NOT an excuse and is NOT “understandable”.

    Those people belong in prison and should get much tougher sentences and fines than they currently do.

  54. Dawgman says:

    Lady Raine, you seem to have a serious misconception about what I’m talking about here.

    When I say understandable. I mean the ability to piece together WHY they would do it and the ability to sympathize, however small, with the action.
    Let’s say a family member you held deeply was killed by another person. And you, in a fit of rage, decided to hunt them down and attack them.

    In the court of law, it would make sense for you to get charged with assault. But I highly doubt you would, because despite how wrong your actions were, you’re emotions got the better of you. People would understand, and most likely, charges would be dropped(Doesn’t excuse your actions, but people would UNDERSTAND.)

    Sometimes it happens. No one has perfect control over themselves. No one. Anyone who says they do are either lying, or have never reached their boiling point(Which is bad, most people should reach their boiling point soon in life, as to understand how much stress is too much. And to know when to stop and relax.) Depending on how you ‘snap’, the experience can negatively or positively affect you.

    Just because I say there are understandable actions doesn’t mean that all actions are understandable. That, is your misconception.

  55. trumwill says:

    Raine,

    If you’re looking for someone that pines for the marriage arrangements of yesterday, you’re not going to find it with me. But I am just not on board with the notion that current divorce rates represent a healthy a society. And while a divorce rate of 0% represents some people in pretty unhappy marriages, I don’t think that 40-50% of marriages are unworkable or that, if that much is true, we can’t do a better job of mate-selection at the outset to avoid a portion of these unworkable marriages.

    Theoretically, if large amounts of religious people are sticking through unhappy marriages, then religious people would have, in the aggregate, unhappier marriages. But the opposite is true. If experimentation lead to better results in terms of mate selection, there would be a positive correlation between marital success and experimentation, but the opposite is true. If premarital cohabitation lead to better marriage results through better mate selection, there would be a positive correlation there, but there isn’t. If people that get divorced are better off for it because it’s better than being in an unhappy marriage, the research doesn’t show it.

    With the exception of premarital cohabitation, all of the above things that aren’t supported seem intuitively correct to me. But there isn’t much of anything empirically to back it up.

    If you, like Transplanted Lawyer, are operating under the belief that there’s nothing wrong with a divorce rate that hovers around 40-50%, I think we’re operating under irreconcilable assumptions. I don’t think that we should drive the divorce rate down by any means necessary (eliminating female independence, preventing women from leaving abusive men, etc). There are other considerations. But divorce rates are definitely among them and 50% is too high.

  56. trumwill says:

    Dawgman, when you’re instinct is to immediately “understand” a man that hits a woman, that’s somewhat telling. Not unlike those who jump to Israel’s or Palestine’s defense saying that we must “understand” why they did what they did. Almost nobody is equally enthusiastic about “understanding” both sides of that conflict. People leap towards understanding the side that they are more sympathetic with. Your sympathies are with men who hit women.

    It’s the typical yes/but. It’s what comes after the second that counts. Yes, hitting women is wrong, but sometimes they deserve it! Yes, rape is wrong, but women should take more care not to be raped! Yes, women shouldn’t lie about paternity, but if they do biology shouldn’t stop the man from paying child support on a child that he helped raise and that considers him Dad! Yes, the Duke Lacrosse players didn’t do it, but we must always give prosecutors maximum leeway in rape cases or else someone guilty will get off!

    Sometimes there is something good and important behind the “but”… however, yours is entirely speculative. If you are put on trial for assaulting someone (and there’s no question as to whether or not you did), you can’t just say “maybe I had a good reason.” You have to give what that reason is and probably back it up. Roissy chose not to do that (or even explain why he would not). Most likely, he didn’t think that it required explanation. It’s not my job to come up with an explanation for him.

  57. Escapist says:

    @Trumwill:

    Props to you for your reply to “Dawgman” (this one: http://hitcoffee.net/index.php/file/2373#comment-11083)

    While I don’t necessarily agree with everything you’ve said in this post etc: We need to give credit to guys who don’t tow the path-of-least-resistance manosphere line, particularly when it comes to violence apologia

  58. Dawgman says:

    Trumwill, you aren’t getting what I mean. The instinct isn’t to immediately understand. It’s to ask why?

    Did he do it because he felt like it?
    Did he do it because his sandwich had mayo?
    Did he do it because she cheated on you?
    Did he do it because she killed his dog?

    Of course, you hold the man back if he’s about ready to launch another hit. But you wonder what made him snap.
    Once you figure out the reason, you judge accordingly.

    He just felt like it? The dick.
    Mayo? He hit her for a ridiculous reason like that? Chump
    She cheated? I’d be pissed too.
    She killed his dog? That’s messed up.

    Doesn’t make the attack right. It never will. But your perspective changes.

    But yes, I do believe hitting people(keyword being people) is wrong. But sometimes, they DO deserve it. They sometimes do something thats so messed up, a punch to the face is WELL DESERVED. Male or female, that really doesn’t matter. I remember a time my little cousin was being picked on at the park by 6 or so older kids(Some about as old as I was.) These kids were throwing firecrackers at people. None of the adults did anything. I stood up to them, and fought all of them. I didn’t exactly win(There were more than 6 of them.) But I got a good hit in.

    Was it wrong for me to fight and punch them? sure. But they were being total snobs and that one that received my punch had it coming. I certainly don’t regret it.(The police were called and they ran. I do wish I landed a few more hits in though.)

    (A perfect example would be from an Episode of White Collar, where Fauler, the current antagonist at the time, interrupts the protag’s wife’s meeting. Probably ruining her business prospects with an FBI investigation. Our protag, punches him in anger. This doesn’t mean what he did was right. He’s punished for it. But if you watched the scene, you’d be rooting for our protagonist. Even if what he did was wrong.)

    Sometimes there is something good and important behind the “but”… however, yours is entirely speculative. If you are put on trial for assaulting someone (and there’s no question as to whether or not you did), you can’t just say “maybe I had a good reason.” You have to give what that reason is and probably back it up. Roissy chose not to do that (or even explain why he would not). Most likely, he didn’t think that it required explanation. It’s not my job to come up with an explanation for him.

    That’s kind of my point though. We had no idea about the circumstances behind the incident. And my idea being speculative is exactly the point I was making. We don’t know what went on. So all we can say is the PC answer of he should not have hit her and move on, because we just don’t know.

  59. Maria says:

    Well, I personally do not think that Roissy hit his “girlfriend” — I think he doesn’t have many girlfriends, and I think in that post he was just showing off to his fanbois (look how macho I am! I hit girls and they love it!) as well as making up a data point to support his “scientific” thesis.

    But he still advocates the things I said he did: hitting women, and looking upon women as dogs. And my orignial question was to Phi and Brendan, not Dawgman:

    How is being a Roissy fanboi consistent with Christian ethics?

  60. trumwill says:

    Phi treats Roissy as something of a cautionary tale. The kind of thing our iniquitous sexual atmosphere breeds. Branden mentions something along similar lines above. Neither wants to “be” Roissy, but both do lend the veracity of his stories and perspective (that it’s true, not that it’s moral) than Maria, Sheila, or I do.

    I mean, if I believed that what Roissy said was actually true, I would probably read him a lot more regularly than I do. One of the main reasons I don’t is because I think he’s mostly full of it. A niche-market story salesman to discontented guys getting verification that the deck is stacked unfairly against them.

  61. Maria says:

    The Escapist found another Roissy link giving advice on how to abuse women:

    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/great-scenes-of-game-in-the-movies-4/

    “One, he recognizes his power is so much higher than Hepburn’s that a solid blow by his fist would do her serious damage and have unfortunate repercussions for his reputation. Two, the face-palm push is much more degrading than a punch would be to a woman. It’s beating her on her own terms — no egregious violence to embolden martyrdom or incite white knighting, but enough psychological impact to crater her ego. A woman’s most valuable asset, besides the upkeep of her vagina, is her face. Grant’s face-palm is an affront to that asset. It’s basically saying “your face is worthless to me and can kiss my sweaty palm.”

    “Other alpha moves of controlled anger at your disposal (some examples drawn from personal experience):
    Hard wrist grab followed by push onto bed or sofa.
    Backhanded slap.
    Half grapefruit shoved into the face.
    Pin her against the wall by her wrists or throat.
    Shoulder grab with a full body spin toss finishing move.
    Bowl of dry cereal thrown like confetti in her face.
    Beer poured over her head.
    Cream-filled pastry tossed in her face.
    Spray bottle of cleaning fluid thrown at her followed by the words “Clean yourself off, filthy whore.”
    Crucifix thrown at her if she’s playing martyr.
    Dual handed breast grab and push backward.
    Push wad of toilet paper in her mouth.
    Squirt ketchup in her face.”

    Really? Push a wad of toilet paper in her mouth? Who does that, outside of extreme psycho-hood? Throw a crucifix?

    Sorry, but only men (and women) with real problems can wade through this stuff and not be disgusted. The fact that there are “Christians” out there reading this stuff and getting off on it is very disturbing, at least to me.

  62. trumwill says:

    Maria and EscapistArt, I wanted to thank you both for the legwork you did on this. I didn’t think my opinion of Roissy could get any lower, but your diligence has demonstrated otherwise.

  63. Maria says:

    You’re welcome Will! It was actually kind of painful for me to wade through that sewer to dig up those links.

  64. Kirk says:

    I’ve noticed that whenever a blog has a thread that gets a ton of comments, a lot of the comments come from people who normally never post there. I have to wonder how these people all of a sudden know to pay attention to this little corner of the internet.

    I’m not complaining. And after all, it’s not my blog. But do these commentators lurk for months (or years) waiting for something to prompt them to comment? Are they called in by others as reinforcements? Are they sock puppets? Or do they just tirelessly watch feeds from dozens of blogs they normally have no interest in, just to post when something “important” comes up?

  65. trumwill says:

    Kirk, there’s usually a linkage effect that causes both lots of comments and new commenters. In Mala Fide linked to this post and I suspect that’s where Dawgman came from. The mentions of Lady Raine probably caused someone to follow the link to the side and she popped in due to referral logs. Maybe EscapeArtist, too, though both of them do pop in from time to time.

  66. Escapist says:

    @Kirk: Dude, I can’t comment as much as you, given that I work a lot (from wakeup time to sleep time yesterday, and that’s a “weekend”). But I’m here periodically and sometimes a post like this one just cries out for pterodactyl masculinity

    And that’s when we call in Sexy Pterodactyl (or if he’s busy, then Uncle Engelbert or Aunt Mildred) to Educate:

    http://sexypterodactyl.wordpress.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

If you are interested in subscribing to new post notifications,
please enter your email address on this page.