Kicking. Squealing.
One man is embarking on a crusade to right the ship ’White Manosphere’. He is black, but I don’t think he has a beard. He has a razor though – although it is dull. The crux of this man’s argument – a propos my piece on OKCupid and slutty women - is that there is no correlation between slutty behavior and tattoos and/or body piercings among the female population.
My question to the interlocutor:
“Do you think that women with tattoos and piercings (let me clarify, with highly visible tattoos and unconventional piercings) have the same sexual habits as “clean” women? Based on your experience or second-hand knowledge.”
The interlocutor’s response:
“As to my own firsthand experience, I would say that there is no correlation in the least along these lines. I’ve personally known Women who don’t have a bit of ink and don’t even wear earrings who are some of the biggest sluts around, and I know Women who have their belly buttons pierced and have quite visable (sic) tats and are dang near frigid. If I were going to base the sexual proclivity of Women on the parameters you and other White Manosphere types suggest I would wind up getting a goodly bit of egg on my face early and often – and mind you, I am talking about Black Women here, for the most part, although I could toss in say, 25% of Puerto Rican Women and some White Women as well. Just doesn’t work.”
In short, the commenter is saying that he doesn’t see a correlation between visible tattoos or unconventional piercings whereas me and every other man I’ve ever met believes that this correlation exists. Further, he is commenting on the state of the ship “WM”, but he admits that most of his experiences are with BW (black women). Seems we have a case of a man overstepping his area of expertise. Note: this isn’t to say that every woman with visible tattoos is a slut or that women without these things aren’t sluts. In general…
Is this woman a slut?
Does a slut fuck in the woods?
From the American Academy of Pediatrics’ journal Pediatrics, a study titled “Tattoos and Body Piercings as Indicators of Adolescent Risk-Taking Behaviors“, we find the answer to our question. Results show that females with tattoos and piercings are more likely to engage in risky behaviors including sex:
Participants with tattoos and/or body piercings were more likely to have engaged in risk-taking behaviors and at greater degrees of involvement than those without either. These included disordered eating behavior, gateway drug use, hard drug use, sexual activity, and suicide. Violence was associated with males having tattoos and with females having body piercings. Gateway drug use was associated with younger age of both tattooing and body piercing. Hard drug use was associated with number of body piercings. Suicide was associated with females having tattoos and younger age of both tattooing and body piercing. Tattoos and body piercings were found to be more common in females than males.
Those findings aren’t limited to the U.S. Researchers found that Brazilian adolescents were more likely to engage in risky behavior if they had tattoos and piercings as well. From an abstract for research published in the European Journal of Epidemiology in 2006:
Tattooing and body piercing may be visible markers to identify adolescents whose lifestyle may put them at a higher risk for morbidity and mortality. In 664 Brazilian adolescents we found 8.4% of body modifications. Further, sexual experience, illicit drug, alcohol consumption, and anti-HBc positivity were independently associated with them. These data suggest the potential risk of tattooing/body piercing in our youths.
Research from the Journal of Adolescence corroborates. Stretching beyond the adolescent realm, similar patterns were found among college students.
Now I understand that tattoos and piercings are romanticized in the way that Margaret Mead romanticized Samoans and other “primitive” tribes’ sexual behavior. In fact there is probably a commonality there, but that is beyond the scope of this little piece. Our commenter and feminists who would pretend that tattoos and piercings have existed throughout human history and therefore do not indicate risky behavior in modern peoples forget one simple fact about those bygone behaviors: those adornments actually meant something. They were rooted in either tribal custom, mythology, or culture. They weren’t countercultural badges of honor; they were worn by individuals who bought in to the culture and were a part of it.
In a more nihilistic age, tattoos and piercings – though they may superficially herald ancient traditions and tribespeoples’ behavior – are nothing more than showpieces signifying nothing more than the wearer’s own narcissism or lack of purpose. It is precisely those qualities that lead to both tattoos and piercings and risky behavior which includes sluttery in women.
Let the body of scientific evidence speak for itself since the piles of dilapidated tramp stamped bodies of dick sniffing women doesn’t provide enough evidence for you.
Hi Chuck,
Thanks for posting this up, and as you might guess, I’ll be writing about this over at my blog soon.
But for now, let’s take everything you have presented here as gospel, OK? Fine.
Where does that leave guys like yourself – in other words, guys who make such determinations about Women who have tats and piercings, given that both are becoming more and more ubiquitous in our time? What alternatives are available to such Men? Please explain?
Thanks!
O.
[Chuck: Your response should read: Chuck, you're right.
[And where does it leave me? Actually, its been academic for me from the get-go so I'm left the same as I was before. I'm in a relationship with a girl who only has her ears pierced in one place and has never entertained the idea of getting a tattoo. And didn't you read all of the studies I linked to? *I* didn't determine that these women are sluts they decided to behave that way on their own.]
“Results show that females with tattoos and piercings are more likely to engage in risky behaviors including sex:”
They needed a study to tell them this? Really? What next — “research shows that Minnesota gets more snow than Florida”?
[Chuck: No "they" didn't. But Obsidian did. He denied what we all know.]
The first time I encountered the word “interlocutor,” it was in the book “The Metaphysical Club.” When I looked it up, I wanted to stab somebody.
When you use it here, though, it’s “Saul Goodman,” because pretension is awesome when you’re trollin’ tough.
[Chuck: I don't usually use the word, but the interlocutor in question likes to use the word "interlocutor" quite often.]
So let’s see…most tattoos women get are right above their butts on above their breasts. To get these, they have to strip in front of the tattoo artist and usually the group of friend they go to the tattoo parlor with.
Yet we need a study to tell us these women walk on the wild side. Makes sense.
PS — I hear a few porn stars have tattoos as well. But I don’t want to jump to any conclusions. Can you find a study that could tell us if the average porn star is involved in more risk taking behavior than the average woman? Thanks in advance.
DBA,
Again, assuming the hypothesis is accurate, where does that leave Men who don’t approave of Women getting such work done, given the ubiquity of these body adornments? What options do they have? What alternatives are there for them? Please explain?
O.
Celibacy!
I remember I once said something to my mom about getting a tattoo and her response was, “Do you really want to have a tattoo showing when you are wearing your wedding gown?”
I’m glad I never got one. I don’t mind them as much on men, as long as he doesn’t over do it.
J,
LOL! Yup, that about sums it up if the virtually all White Manosphere is serious about all the yammering about “slut markers”. I suppose that means they should get ready for a long and blue ballsy life.
O.
I was 10 or 11 when I first got the conventional girly ear piercings and even my father wasn’t crazy about it…he called it primitive.
Screw tattoos, I’ve always thought those are tacky. What’s wrong with your skin the way it is? Plus, it’s FOREVER. No going back there. Why would you want to marr your skin forever?
Also, most piercings (like nose piercings etc) can get infected so quickly and eat away at your cartilage…wth. They can also paralyze your eyebrows.
Seriously…tattoos and piercings are risk taking behaviors themselves. I can’t see how they’re so in fashion now…before only prisoners and sailors had them.
brightstormyday,
Good point. People should be very, very hesitant to do anything permanent at a young age.
How are we defining “slut”? I think the woman pictured would be willing to have sex with a certain kind of guy- a tough guy who himself has a lot of tattoos, pretty quickly and easily. But that is a small number of guys, so does that make her a slut? To most guys the tattoos are saying “Stay away from me”.
[Chuck: That particular type of girl would snout around like a truffle-hunting boar to scrounge up some dick. That's the main difference. Some girls might screw a lot, but there are other types of girls who seek it out - usually to fill some void.]
Most women- who are not formally religious- will have sex quickly and easily with a certain kind of guy, who meets their definition of ideal manhood. With this woman it’s simply more obvious who that kind of guy is.
I’d define slut as a woman who has sex without the desire for or expectation of an LTR.
Yup, that about sums it up if the virtually all White Manosphere is serious about all the yammering about “slut markers”. I suppose that means they should get ready for a long and blue ballsy life.
—Great argument, darkie! Because clearly believing that tattoos are markers of sluts means we’ll never sleep wit da hoes!
Hey, it makes sense in the ghetto. As does drug dealing. and welfare.
Hi Chuck,
Replies below:
[Chuck: Your response should read: Chuck, you're right.
O: No, igt'll read: I remain skeptical, both because of my own experience, whnich you've previously asked me about, and because the study seemed to focus primarily on Whites. Again, I know far and away more Black and for that matter, Hispanic Men, and they just do not seem to have the kinds of obsessive focus on these things that the largely White Manosphere does. Which brings me to the next point...
[And where does it leave me? Actually, its been academic for me from the get-go so I'm left the same as I was before. I'm in a relationship with a girl who only has her ears pierced in one place and has never entertained the idea of getting a tattoo. And didn't you read all of the studies I linked to? *I* didn't determine that these women are sluts they decided to behave that way on their own.]
O: The study aside for the moment, and taking you out of the equation, that still doesn’t account for the inordinate focus to near obsessive levels in the White Manosphere about these and related issues. I mean, if gals with tats are such a problematic thing for you, why even spend so much time discussing them? This, along with fat Women and the like, really interest me, because it is fascinating to watch so many grown Men obsess over things they vehemently claim not to like. Maybe it’s me but I simply do not focus my time or energy at all on the things I have no interest in or liking for; I just turn my attentions to things I do like, and call it a day. But the Manosphere seems very fixated on bemoaning what’s so wrong with Women, and spends very little time discussing ways in which to get the kinds of Women they DO like. Why do you think that is, Chuck?
[Chuck: Obsidian's Razor]
Oh, and one last thing: I have never set out to “right the ship” of the White Manosphere. Like I said before, I don’t have a problem with the current configuration of the largely White Manosphere; rather, I am just observing some very interesting aspects and features of it that I think merits closer examination.
Holla back
O.
According to a 2008 Harris poll, 13 percent of women had tattoos: http://www.daytondailynews.com/lifestyle/women-get-tattoos-to-make-a-statement-179871.html
So to answer Obsidian’s question, that leaves the other 87 percent for guys in the Manosphere, if tattoos are an indication of a woman not being a good long term prospect.
Pingback: She is your canvass, so remake her the way you want
I think this Obsidian character is a troll. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was white pretending to be black.
DBA,
Assuming the Harris poll, which is now three years old, is indeed accurarte, wwe also have to factor in piercings, too – as well as fat Women, both of which I am sure drives the percentage up. In light of all of that, what I asked Chuck and the rest of the forum stands. And it is interesting that Chuck either can’t, or won’t, answer.
Hmm…
O.
My slut definition: a woman or man with psychological damage resulting from an intimate act/relationship.
Black men are less concerned about whether or not a woman is considered a slut than white men are, generally speaking. From “The Myth of Black Sexual Superiority: A Re-examination” by Robert Staples: “The puritanical exhortations of organized religion served to effectively check much of the Euro-American’s sexuality while the black church functioned more as a tension-reducing institution and eschewed monitoring the moral standards of its parishioners. Black males did not classify women into bad and good groups on that basis of their virginal status. White men did make these distinctions and women were eligible for the respectability of marriage according to their classification in one group or the other.” Historically speaking, virtually all white men lumped all black women into the category of “sluts who were just asking for it” so that they could justify sexually exploiting black women whenever the mood struck them. In light of these facts its not surprising that white men are more aware of and more willing to draw attention to supposed catgories of women: good girls vs bad girls, sluts vs non-sluts. For many black men these categories either don’t exist or have marginal importance when choosing a woman.
Well, OF COURSE that tatoos are a mark for sluts. Duh.
And there’s plenty of girls in the girl tree. Even if there aren’t, there’s laser surgery.
So…why we are having this discussion?
Hi GX,
Because White Men in the virtually all White Manosphere seem to be obsessed with such things, that’s why. And we are endeavoring to determine why this is.
Your thoughts?
O.
The problem with tattoos is that I have never seen one that I would hang on my wall, therefore, why would I want it on my body for as long as I live? I think it just looks a mess, generally. And it isn’t called a “tramp stamp” for nothing – obvious conclusion is obvious.
There’s seem to be some ideas that:
a)Black Males are superior sexual gods. Coming from a guy that expends waaay too much time on the Internet to prove his superiority is rich.
b)That White Men, in general, should shut up, stop complaining and take it on the asses. Not everybody wants to go pagan and take Muslim cock in the ass, or simply watch how women become uglier each day without uttering a peep. Of course, a fattie fucker will not care about that.
Tatoos are a slut brand. Guys find sluts lacking for long-term relationships and ugly sluts as lacking for even pump-and-dumps. Tatoos make a woman ugly. Since those are easy concepts. then again, why the big deal?
Hi GX,
Replies below:
GX: There seem to be some ideas that:
a)Black Males are superior sexual gods. Coming from a guy that expends waaay too much time on the Internet to prove his superiority is rich.
O: An interesting topic, I’m sure, and an ad hominem assault no doubt; but alas, it is a non-sequitur to the current discussion. Move on, son.
b)That White Men, in general, should shut up, stop complaining and take it on the asses. Not everybody wants to go pagan and take Muslim cock in the ass, or simply watch how women become uglier each day without uttering a peep. Of course, a fattie fucker will not care about that.
O: Again, ad hominems aside, all of the grievance mongering on the part of the (all White) Manosphere does indeed raise a powerful question:
WHAT ARE ALL YOUSE (as opposed to “y’all”, since I’m addressing the virtually all White Manosphere) GONNA DO ABOUT IT?-other than merely register grievances to one another? At the end of the day, THAT becomes the central question – because if you don’t like the litany of things that you noted above, and that are discussed ad nauseum in the White Manosphere, at some point either you or somebody will ask, what is to be done about it?
[Chuck: Obsidian, what are we talking about here? We're talking about what choices individual men make about their love life. The White Manosphere doesn't need to band together to handle this "problem". You pretend as if we think that tattooed women are the scourge of the Earth and that we believe that something must be done about it ASAP. I think you are concocting a straw man argument wherein you're creating some sort of false white hysteria.
Truth is, as someone said above, overly tattooed women and pierced women have their own group of guys to hook up with. They get with heavily tattooed men, thugs, ex-cons, drug dealers, etc thus taking a nearly equal number of men out of the pool as well. Fat women get with low status men. As for the rest of us, the so called middle of the road White Manosphere, there are plenty of other fish in the sea. So nothing really needs to be “done” about anything. Most men enjoy sluts for the short-term, but there is a sort of mockery of sluts because they seem to believe – through indoctrination no doubt – that they can act the way they act and still achieve the long-term ideal of loving husand, children, happy marriage.
And by the looks of things, I don’t think a heck of a lot thought, or interest, has been put into answering that question. And it’s something that merits examination, because the largely White Manosphere has begun to make some waves, and we need to start thinking about where it goes from here. Thus far, I don’t see much in the way of solutions to address what are clearly huge problems for the virtually all White Manosphere.
What do you have to say about all that, GX? What are the solutions to all these problems that the White Manosphere complains about, day in and day out?
GX: Tatoos are a slut brand. Guys find sluts lacking for long-term relationships and ugly sluts as lacking for even pump-and-dumps. Tatoos make a woman ugly. Since those are easy concepts. then again, why the big deal?
O: Because the virtually all White Manosphere itself makes such a big deal out of them – that’s why. And because of instead focusing on being proactive and coming up with ways and solutions to their problems, the White Manosphere seems more fixated on grievance mongering – which is ironic, since many among their ranks accuse other groups of doing exactly the same thing.
[Chuck: What does proactive have to do with it? Let these sluts brand themselves as such. It'll be easier to spot them for a quick fuck. These women choose to mark themselves, and it is beyond our power to directly control their behavior. We aren't patriarchal dictators here, no matter what others would have you believe.
Funny, that.
For more on these and related matters, checkout Alte’s blog:
http://traditionalcatholicism.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/women-are-stupid-throw-rocks-at-them/
And holla back
O.
Obsidian,
I know plenty of black men who HATE tattoos and ssume the worst of women who have them. Admittedly, most have a relgious/conservative bent, but I know a few (who are fairly young, too) who aren’t religious and would DATE (Read: sleep with) such a woman but would never, never, never consider taking her home to mama.
Period. I don’t think this is a position held exclusively by white men.
The answer is simple: tell her to get rid of the tats, or she’s out.
Hi Terry,
Replies below:
T: Obsidian,
I know plenty of black men who HATE tattoos and (a)ssume the worst of women who have them. Admittedly, most have a relgious/conservative bent, but I know a few (who are fairly young, too) who aren’t religious and would DATE (Read: sleep with) such a woman but would never, never, never consider taking her home to mama.
Period. I don’t think this is a position held exclusively by white men.
O: Duly noted, though again with the caveats you have put into place. Please don’t misunderstand me here – I am not saying that Men, regardless of color, do not have the right to their likes and dislikes, their preferences and so forth. I am asking, what practical steps can such a Man take, given the litany of things that are “dealbreakers” for so many White Men, and I put it that way because we are in for all intents, a White sector of the Internet, for the most part. I don’t think anyone would deny that, yes?
So, if the White Men of the White Manosphere are constantly complaining about “slut markers” fat Women, Women who are ball busters, Women who have bad attitudes, etc, et al, it gets really hard to see where these guys are going to go to find mates, does it not? I just find it fascinating that there is so much time and energy expended on discussing in very clear terms what these White Men do NOT like, and precious little time in trying to find meaningful, and PRACTICAL solutions to said problems. It seems to me that merely registering grievance, attempting to berate Women and the like, isn’t gonna get it.
So, what do they do? Where do they go from here? For sure, and this is in reply to GX, those Men do not have to deal with such Women. Having said that, where do they go? How do they solve this problem?
It almost seems as if these guys want Women to change, and while that is understandable, it is also at the same time, untenable. Not only do Women have the right to do with their bodies what they wish, but there is no mechanism in place to compel them to do so either – and that’s not even speaking for the fact that for every White Man in the virtually White Manosphere who regularly laments such things, there is at least one White Men who has absolutely no problem with it whatsoever.
So, where is all of this constant sense of grievance, ultimately going? How is it making the White Men of the White Manosphere’s lives any better? What’s the end game?
Comments?
O.
There’s a reason why they’re called “tramp stamps” and “the mark of the whore”. They might as well all say, “Attention alphas: insert here, either place”, with an arrow pointing down.
So, where is all of this constant sense of grievance, ultimately going? How is it making the White Men of the White Manosphere’s lives any better? What’s the end game?
Being niether white nor male, I have no answers for your overall question, Obsidian. It IS a very good question, though.
There is a general truism that applies to us all that I think is a great start. One should actively strive to BE the kind of person they demand others be in order to earn their respect. This is a character trait I often see lacking in my readings around the maonspehere. Womanizers demanding chaste women for LTR’s and whatnot.
I think I just stepped in it, lol.
So, if the White Men of the White Manosphere are constantly complaining about “slut markers” fat Women, Women who are ball busters, Women who have bad attitudes, etc, et al, it gets really hard to see where these guys are going to go to find mates, does it not?
No, because 1) there’s always women who will listen to the complaints of men, and change to accommodate men, and 2) those who don’t will find themselves the losers in the sexual marketplace.
Well you may have stepped in it Terry, but it’s true. If I spend too much time on certain blogs, I start to think I can’t trust anyone. It is a little bit much for those guys to be that promiscuous themselves while demanding no less than a virgin bride. What makes them think a virgin would want them after all the skanks they’ve inserted themselves into? Gross! (And they’ve probably all got HPV since condoms don’t protect so well against that – it only takes a little bit of skin to skin contact).
Hi Terry,
Yes, I think you did indeed, “step in it”, LOL. Let’s see what happens from here on out with the White Male commenters in response to your highly legitimate point…
In the meantime, I was reviewing Alte’s recent “The Curse of Cuteness” post, and came accross what I must say is a very astute observation by David Alexander; I think what he says applies very well to the current conversation:
“My hypothesis with some of the original Roissyists is that a sizable number of have a bit of a fetish for a Mad Men-esque world where they can have a wife to deal with a family and mistresses to cater to their sexual demands. Tradition for these men isn’t of a religious context, but merely a means of consuming women in the easiest means possible. These men want decent female company AND sluts to provide maximum sexual pleasure, and they want both women to accept their roles with pleasure in these respective functions.
Editor: Yes, that’s the general impression I also have of them.
As for the bitterness, I suspect many of them are simply upset after years of failing with women and finding out their true nature. Once one finds out women aren’t the same as men, you’re left with either accepting their nature as a fait accompli and facing a decision to either deal with the situation or abandon women, or to become angry and bitter about previous failures, or to start drinking heavily and coming up with ways to fix women and make them better and more compatible.”
http://traditionalcatholicism.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/the-curse-of-cuteness/#comment-2100
And if this is so, then it raises even more questions for the virtually all White Manosphere to grapple with – that is, of course, if they’re serious about finding real solutions. On the other hand if they have other aims and goals, then by all means, have at it.
Comments?
O.
Blanque,
Replies below:
B: No, because 1) there’s always women who will listen to the complaints of men, and change to accommodate men, and 2) those who don’t will find themselves the losers in the sexual marketplace.
O: Fair enough – let’s examine that then…
First, if what you say is true, where is there seemingly so little written about this in the virtually all White Manosphere? Perhaps I am mistaken along these lines, and you can point me to blogposts by prominent White Manosphere writers where this kind of proactive approach is regularly featured?
Second, if anything, one could make the strong case that it is the many in the White Manosphere who are the losers in the SMP-after all, the gals they decry the most don’t seem to be the ones lacking for Male company if and when they want it.
You were saying?
O.
Hi Thag Jones,
Glad to meet ya! I’ve seen you around but this is the first time we’ve had the chance to “meet”. Replies below:
TJ: Well you may have stepped in it Terry, but it’s true. If I spend too much time on certain blogs, I start to think I can’t trust anyone. It is a little bit much for those guys to be that promiscuous themselves while demanding no less than a virgin bride. What makes them think a virgin would want them after all the skanks they’ve inserted themselves into? Gross! (And they’ve probably all got HPV since condoms don’t protect so well against that – it only takes a little bit of skin to skin contact).
O: And I think you make a highly legitimate observation, one that others have noticed as well, Thag. And it deserves an honest answer, again, if the White Manosphere is serious about moving the ball foward.
O.
Just wanted to post the following exchange between Alte and myself over at her blog, because I think it addresses some root issues that I’ve really been trying to get at wrt the White Manosphere:
“A: I think there’s not much room in the Manosphere right now for any man who actually wants marriage and children. Their goal is turn men away from marriage, not to improve marriage for men.
O: Without a doubt there is a very strong anti-marriage bent and focus within the White Manosphere; but I think you would agree with me that there is an admittedly smaller, but not wholly irrelevant sector of said White Manosphere that focuses on “Game for Marriage” and the like, often, but not always, with a decided religious (read: Christian) slant to it. Dalrock’s blog is one such example, Hawaiian Libertarian is another, Patri’s blog is yet another. Would you agree?
Moreover, the problem with the White Manosphere just isn’t its stance wrt marriage, in fact, I would go so far as to suggest that it isn’t that big a problem at all; its all the other things you and I and others, have observed about the White Manosphere – the misogyny, the racism, the xenophobic tendencies, the Stepford Wife fetishes. It’s the Grievance Mentality it tends to foment, it’s the tendency to refuse to be proactive about anything insofar as finding practical solutions, it’s about all these things that really makes the anti-marriage thing, look like a good thing, in comparison, LOL.”
http://traditionalcatholicism.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/women-are-stupid-throw-rocks-at-them/#comment-2152
Comments, anyone?
O.
Hi Chuck,
Happy Martin Luther King Day! Replies below:
[Chuck: Obsidian, what are we talking about here? We're talking about what choices individual men make about their love life. The White Manosphere doesn't need to band together to handle this "problem". You pretend as if we think that tattooed women are the scourge of the Earth and that we believe that something must be done about it ASAP. I think you are concocting a straw man argument wherein you're creating some sort of false white hysteria.
O: No, I'm not, and there are other people, right here on this very thread and whom I do not know, who agree with me that there is indeed a strain of thought in the Manosphere along the lines I have articulated here and on previous threads in this and other forums. That is what I am talking about, and that is what I wish to examine more thoroughly, and I want to thank you in particular for being so very helpful in that regard. The White Male Psyche is a fascinating study.
C: Truth is, as someone said above, overly tattooed women and pierced women have their own group of guys to hook up with. They get with heavily tattooed men, thugs, ex-cons, drug dealers, etc thus taking a nearly equal number of men out of the pool as well.
O: Hang on Chuck - you just introduced a new variable into the discussion: "heavily tattooed/pierced" Women. Now, that's quite a sliding scale, isn't it? In the White Manosphere, this isn't anywhere near as clearly defined, and I know I'm coming off as a bit pedantic here, but given the inordinate focus on these and related issues in the White Manosphere, I think it's important for us to be as precise as we can here.
C: Fat women get with low status men. As for the rest of us, the so called middle of the road White Manosphere, there are plenty of other fish in the sea. So nothing really needs to be “done” about anything.
O: If that's true, why is Roissy and Ferdi and most other White Manosphere bloggers constantly complaining about "fatties"? You even did it, recently, yet you have a girlfriend who I presume isn't what most White Men consider "fat" - yes? Why the constant focus on things that supposedly don't effect the bulk and mass of you? It just doesn't make sense, now does it?
[Chuck: If you stave off the assault from the fat and tatt'd fringe, you protect the ones in the middle that are actually desirable. The complaint about fatties is three-fold: a.) they are increasingly prevalent b.) it is increasingly accepted and we are made to believe that it must accepted to be good and c.) we are taught, wrongly, that beauty is on the inside and d.) women are taught that they can have it all.]
If it is anything, the manosphere is a structure which aims to tell everyone else that, no matter what PC BS you buy in to, you cannot have it all. Constraints abound. For most of us, this is an academic debate. We don’t date fat women or sluts. But there is nothing wrong with academic debate on these topics.]
C: Most men enjoy sluts for the short-term, but there is a sort of mockery of sluts because they seem to believe – through indoctrination no doubt – that they can act the way they act and still achieve the long-term ideal of loving husand, children, happy marriage.
O: Is this based on any objective measures, or is this too something that is a sort of urban legand in the White Manosphere? I mean, is there any data out there that conclusively proves, that Women with a tat or two and perhaps a bellyring, is doomed out there on the marital market and destined to live out her days as a childless spinster? Please explain?
Moreover, given that so many White Men in the White Manosphere clearly abhors marriage anyway, why would they care what sluts think about the matter? As you said, they are only interested in her for the short term anyway, so why the need to even waste any time ridiculing her longterm ambitions? If the guy in question got what he wanted, what’s the point? After all, I don’t recall hearing about too many Woman holding it against those very same Men for bedding the tatted out sluts in the first place when they are ready to settle down for marriage, right? So, what gives here? Again, please explain?
[Chuck: Men in the Manosphere "abhor" marriage because it has become an institution which is systemically misandrist. Men are sitting ducks. And the mechanism which causes this to be so also "allowed" women to start getting tattoos and becoming fat slobs: entitlement. Women are increasingly letting themselves go in these ways - eating more, exercising less, getting a tramp stamp or a clit piercing, sleeping with one more dude here and there - but they seem to expect (one would think that despite these marginal changes, their personal expectations wouldn't change) that they should be accepted the same as before.
But taken in the aggregate, these marginal changes add up and reconfigure the whole nature of the beasts we are dealing with. Shaming and so-called complaint is a means to stave off this steady march towards slutdom. Now, men will take these sluts, but they won't marry them or commit to them. And when women complain about men's lack of committment, they have to at least partially blame themselves.]
[Chuck: What does proactive have to do with it? Let these sluts brand themselves as such. It’ll be easier to spot them for a quick fuck. These women choose to mark themselves, and it is beyond our power to directly control their behavior. We aren’t patriarchal dictators here, no matter what others would have you believe.
O: While that indeed may be true, it is still fascinating to take note of all the registering of grievance in this regard on the part of the White Manosphere – all the while having no problem partaking of the very tatted sluts they claim to abhor. There’s a word for such behavior, don’t you know.
Hmm…
O.
why is Roissy and Ferdi and most other White Manosphere bloggers constantly complaining about “fatties”?
Probably because “average” is the new fat. It’s a fat old world out there – it amazes me how old a lot of my peers look. That goes for men as well as women – there are men my age I wouldn’t want to date because I’d feel like I was out with my dad and they’re FAT. o_O
The notion that tattoos, but not piercings, correlate with poor judgment ability makes sense. Tattoos are semi-permanent. Yes, they can be removed, but the removal process is quite difficult, painful, and is imperfect. Thus, anyone who gets a tattoo is making a permanent body alteration to satisfy an ephemeral emotional whim. This fact alone make clear that tattoos are an indication of poor judgment ability.
Piercings are a different story. When you stop using the piercing, the hole does close up (heals) over time. Thus piercings are not a permanent thing like tattoos. Also, one example of piercing, pierced ears, has been commonly accepted in society for many generations.
At least this is how I see it. Your mileage may differ.
[Chuck: It's true that piercings and tattoos have temporal differences. But is it true that sluts do? I've heard it said: (you) can't turn a hoe into a housewife. And I believe it.]
Thag,
I know what you mean. Most men age very well if they stay slim and in shape. I don’t know why some of them don’t put more effort into it, it seems relatively easy.
Hi Chuck,
Replies below:
[Chuck: If you stave off the assault from the fat and tatt'd fringe, you protect the ones in the middle that are actually desirable.
O: I am not sure I buy this line of argument, for reasons that I layout below. The notion of "shaming" and "protecting" Women from themselves is in my view a Fool's Errand that is destined to fail in a free society at the dawn of the 21st century.
[Chuck: I'm not talking about protecting women for themselves. I'm talking about men communicating what they find attractive so that women can maintain themselves according to those guidelines, if they see fit. A woman can't eat all of the Twinkies in the world and remain attractive. She can't get tatt'd up and be considered virtuous or desirable for anything more than an off-hand fuck.
In many ways, what DA observed is so very true - that many White Men in the White Manosphere want to turn the clock back to the Mad Men era - benefits to Women be damned.
[Chuck: Nobody is taking women's rights away. They can do what they want.]
C: The complaint about fatties is three-fold: a.) they are increasingly prevalent b.) it is increasingly accepted and we are made to believe that it must accepted to be good and c.) we are taught, wrongly, that beauty is on the inside and d.) women are taught that they can have it all.]
O: Actually, you made four points, LOL. [Chuck: Bonus for you then.]
I hear all that – but SO WHAT? What does that have to do with the White Men of the White Manosphere finding the kinds of Women they DO want? Why is there so little discussion precisely on that point, Chuck? Why is there so much grievance?
[Chuck: There are plenty of blogs in the blogosphere that are committed to discussing what men do want and figuring out ways to find it. Roissy's blog is primarily dedicated to that endeavor. It would naturally follow that there is also a niche where men discuss what they *don't* want. The latter is a consequence of the former.]
C: If it is anything, the manosphere is a structure which aims to tell everyone else that, no matter what PC BS you buy in to, you cannot have it all. Constraints abound. For most of us, this is an academic debate. We don’t date fat women or sluts. But there is nothing wrong with academic debate on these topics.]
O: Well, do grown Men have to be told that we cannot have it all? Because for the most part, Women aren’t participating in the White Manosphere, so you’re all basically preaching to the choir, at best. Second, I think one would be hardpressed to call what Roissy does wrt “fattie shaming” and the like to be “academic” nor any of the other numerous examples of crying into one’s beer that takes place in the White Manosphere.[Chuck: Show me where anyone has "cried in their beer". You speak of ad hominem yet you are the biggest purveyor of it.] There is nothing “academic” about that, Chuck. There isn’t even any “debate”. It’s all an echo chamber, and there’s nothing wrong with having a kind of virtual clubhouse where the fellas can go and say intemporate things and so forth, but let’s call it for what it is.
[Chuck: It's called the fucking *Man*-o-sphere. What more do you want?]
[Chuck: Men in the Manosphere "abhor" marriage because it has become an institution which is systemically misandrist. Men are sitting ducks. And the mechanism which causes this to be so also "allowed" women to start getting tattoos and becoming fat slobs: entitlement.
O: The *reasons why* Men in the White Manosphere abhor marriage in this instance is irrelevant [Chuck: Then why did you bring it up?] – the point being made here is, if said Men abhor marriage to begin with, WHY are the so hellbent on “telling the sluts” about themselves? So what if said gals want to get married – the point is that said slutty gal put out for the guy who doesn’t want to get married anyway, end of. Why can’t he just keep it moving? [Chuck: Obsidian's Razor.]
And are you sure the reason why Women are getting heavier and getting tatted up is due to “entitlement”? What does that even mean? Please explain? How about this idea – those Women are exercising their choices to do with their bodies whatever they wish, and didn’t think it important or necessary to check in with the fellas?
[Chuck: I watched a fat chick on Millionaire Matchmaker saying that she wanted to be with a man who looked like Matthew McConaughey. If women collude - as they are virtually doing by spouting all of this "love your body" nonsense - they are declining in status i.e. looks while expecting the same level of interest as before. These cultural shifts - a consequence of relativism - are supported in the female hindbrain by notions of entitlement and "go grrl" propaganda. It is the difference between the constrained and unconstrained vision of life. Men have long realized that life has constraints; women are living in a make believe world where constraints don't exist. My only interest is in helping women realize that those constraints are present and that they must abide by them just like the rest of us. I can't speak for the motives of any other men in the White Manosphere.]
C: Women are increasingly letting themselves go in these ways – eating more, exercising less, getting a tramp stamp or a clit piercing, sleeping with one more dude here and there – but they seem to expect (one would think that despite these marginal changes, their personal expectations wouldn’t change) that they should be accepted the same as before.
O: I don’t necessarily disagree here…but so what? What does that have to do with all those other White Women who aren’t like that, Chuck? Why is there virtually NO discussion in the White Manosphere, as to how to date and/or bed THEM? [Chuck: You should check out a blog called "Roissy". You might like it. I link to it in my blogroll.] That’s what I am asking among other things. In other words, why put so much focus on people who by you guys own definition are subpar to begin with? I don’t get it.
C: But taken in the aggregate, these marginal changes add up and reconfigure the whole nature of the beasts we are dealing with. Shaming and so-called complaint is a means to stave off this steady march towards slutdom.
O: It is a means yes, but with not much in the way of actual measureable evidence to show for it. How long has Roissy been “shaming fatties” on his site, Chuck? And other White Manosphere bloggers? Now let’s check the White fat Woman stats – have they gone up, or down, since the advent of the White Manosphere? It seems that if anything, this “shaming” campaign, is a Fool’s Errand. [Chuck: I'm not a defeatist.] Of course, if it’s being done for different purposes, then please clue me in; but if it is being done in the hope to get Women to change their behavior, it is not only failing, but failing…badly.
C: Now, men will take these sluts, but they won’t marry them or commit to them. And when women complain about men’s lack of committment, they have to at least partially blame themselves.]
O: But again Chuck, I don’t think you can point to any objective measures that bears your view out here. In fact, we can point to evidence of the exact opposite – there are plenty of tatted, piecered and “fattie” Women in America who have Men committing to them all the time, and mind you, I am talking about WHITE people here. White guys, and White gals. It happens. A lot. I know that’s near blasphemous to say in White Manosphere, but it doesn’t make it any less true because of it.
O.
I think the tattoo was a mark of sluttiness twenty years ago, but that the SWPL adoption of the hobby has lead it to become a potentially misleading marker. The SWPL culture can probably be subdivided into a high time preference lower class and a low time preference upper class (usually SWPLs with college degrees), but tattoos are still present on the upwardly mobile SWPL chicks who seem destined toward yuppiedom. At least in my SWPL-heavy city, I haven’t observed any correlation between possession of tattoos and sluttiness within the educated SWPL girl sub-demographic. Outside of that subdemographic, sure.
I have to agree on the Tramp stamps…they are advertising for thugs and players.
Obsidian is far to obsessed with this issues.
First, if what you say is true, where is there seemingly so little written about this in the virtually all White Manosphere?
It’s all over the Manosphere, and you know it. Don’t even pretend you’ve never heard of Roissy, or Roosh, or Game.
I watched a fat chick on Millionaire Matchmaker saying that she wanted to be with a man who looked like Matthew McConaughey.
Saw that episode too. Notice that the Matchmaker understood that the fat chick couldn’t have that, yet she sets up ugly, fat men with incredibly attractive girls in their 20′s. It seems the matchmaker does somewhat understand the difference between female and male attraction (though most of her other advice is rather anti-Game and thus useless.)
Glad I’m not the only one wasting his time watching shit like that.
“C: Now, men will take these sluts, but they won’t marry them or commit to them. And when women complain about men’s lack of committment, they have to at least partially blame themselves.
O: But again Chuck, I don’t think you can point to any objective measures that bears your view out here.”
This doesn’t show that men won’t commit to sluts, but it’s at least evidence that they ought not to:
http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2010/12/women-who-get-around-while-unmarried.html
Women who get tattoos aren’t sluts, they’re attention whores.
That being said, there’s a short and slippery slope between attention whoring and sexual whoring. I’ll stick with using the tattoo as a sign of relationship unsuitability (unless the tattoo has “real” significance, a la the widow who wears her former husband’s mark or the surgery survivor who covers her scar with a rose or butterfly).
Pingback: Spreading Hate, Building Love: Gone Forever, We Are Done With Worldviews Mechanical Edition | The Internet Hate Machine
Funny shit, good job.
Ok besides the obvious tramp stamps, tattoos and piercings don’t always mean they are sluts. I have various piercings and have only slept with one man – my husband and this was after we have married. It may be true that some women with piercings and tattoos may be sluts but it is also true that some women who do not have either are sluts as well. It is unfair to label every woman who has a tattoo or piercing as a slut.
“Unfair” doesn’t mean “generally inapplicable.” Every rule of thumb has exceptions. I know a few beluga-type fatties who got all tatted and pierced up to display their willingness to be used, but no buyers. Pretty sad, really.