20 Responses

  1. shmiggen

    I didn’t leave a long-winded response to the article, but I did state that her transgression wasn’t so bad given they aren’t married. A “boyfriend” can walk away from this. He can even stick around for awhile and plan his departure. But if this happens to a married man….it’s not so cut and dry.

    1. veritaslounge

      Thanks for commenting, and welcome!

      Of course it is a different context, but of course, as well, the justification offered in the article could be used for a married person, too.

      Even more fundamentally, the idea that “it was something I needed to do for me” is morally bankrupt. A middle aged mid life crisis guy would say the same thing, as would a sexually bored wife. It is a fundamentally amoral perspective on behavioral ethics.

  2. Escoffier

    What a disgusting piece of tripe that is.

    And as for Justin … well, I suppose he deserves what he gets. Any man with 1/10th the standard level of testosterone would not have even let her finish the conversation. She would have heard the door click in mid-sentence and never seen him again.

  3. Escoffier

    So, this reminds me of the series of books Tales of the City. This is a semi-forgotten series of light, pop novels. It began life as a serialized story in the S.F. Chronicle in the mid-1979s and eventually spanned seven books (IIRC) and a PBS series.

    The books are a curious mixture of left-wing libertinism and a cloyingly sweet atmosphere of “life affirmation.” Basically, the theme seems to be that all the old rules have been swept aside, which gives people an unprecedented chance to live lives of their own choosing and meaning, and what has been lost is replaceable by “friend families.” Maupin (the author) is not a radical, at least not by the standards of the Bay Area gay left.

    Anyway, it’s not great literature. Really, there is no great literature about SF. The best SF novel is probably The Maltese Falcon, which is only set in SF and not really “about” the city. Hammett is, I believe, inferior to Chandler, but in any case he did not write “about” SF the way that Chandler wrote “about” LA.

    So, long windup, the point is, there is a scene in I believe the fifth book in which a married woman openly cheats on her husband and then gives him much the same speech. “I did this for me, don’t judge me,” only even haughtier than this post. But unlike the castrated Justin, her husband Brian hits the roof. This was written in the mid-80s, I guess way back when men were not quite as evolved as they are now.

    Then again, they do eventually reconcile.

  4. Escoffier

    In a woman it’s considered “understandable” because she must have been driven to do it by some terrible failing in her man. This arises from something Dalrock has written about lately, namely, the cultural presumption that women are naturally monogamous so that if they cheat, they must have been driven to it by extraordinary circumstances. There is no acknowledgement at all in the culture that woman may have their own inborn temptations. In fact, there is heated denial.

    Everyone, on the other hand, understands that men have a bio-urge to screw around. But paradoxically, men don’t get a pass for that. On the contrary, they get attacked double hard when they cheat. And the excuse “It’s how I’m wired!” is NEVER accepted. Not that I am saying it should be. I believe humans are a mixture of high and low nature and that in the well-ordered soul, the high rules the low and that when we succumb to the low we are morally blameworthy. Even though the wiring argument is in part true, it is not the whole truth, or the most important truth. But it’s just odd that men are never held to be excused by succumbing to a genuine innate desire, which everyone acknowledges exists, whereas women are never to be held blameworthy for acting on a desire that everyone insists does not exist! If she wasn’t even tempted by her wiring, then her action must have proceeded from pure malice … at least that would be the logical conclusion to draw.

    Of course in this case the woman freely admits that she acted on lust. That’s what is new. Other bloggers have pointed out that younger women no longer feel any need to deny that they feel lust and act on it. The older generation of sex writers, however, are still in full blown denial of that fact. Even when shown examples of women affirming it in their own words, they still deny it. Sort of like the way no female-initiated divorce is ever frivolous, not even when the woman straight-out says “There was nothing wrong with him, I just wasn’t feeling it anymore.” No amount of direct testimony to the contrary can be allowed to change the frame.

  5. Escoffier

    Roissy predicted not long ago that one of the next campaigns of the libertine-left would be to normalize and legitemize female infidelity. As I recall, he linked to something by Hannah “End of Men” Rosen. This seems to be of a piece with that.

  6. Escoffier

    I’m not sure the numbers matter so much, what matters is the impact on the culture, and as we all know, even a very small % can have huge impact, especially when that small % is vastly overrepresented in media, the arts and such.

  7. Escoffier

    Also, re: what you said about delegitimizing monogamy per se, that’s probably right, but I would add this caveat. To the extent that the discussion proceeds in a “gender neutral” way, that will just be to obscure the true intent. That is, like, when some say “Of course rule X applies to both A and B equally” when really, the whole point of the rule is to favor A and stick it to B.

    The real purpose of this movement will not be to give straight men more options, but everyone else more options. This cannot be stated openly for obvious reasons. The whole thing has to sound “fair.” The same way that the Sexual Revolution was initially pitched as “fair” when, as we now can see rather clearly, the vast majority of benefits go to young women and the upper quintile of men. But it’s still possible for ideologues to insist that the SR was “gender neutral” or even favored men.

    So when Hannah Rosen writes about female infidelity “strengthening marriage,” there is no outrage. If a man wrote the same thing about male infidelity, he’s instantly a pig. Hence, the theoretical arc will be “this is gender neutral” but the stories will mostly be of women, and all the approved stories will be about women (or gays).

    Sort of like how no-fault divorce is supposed to benefit both sexes, but divorce porn seems to be a 100% female-driven phenomenon.

  8. Escoffier

    that’s my point, I guess.

    I take it for granted that, as long as this current “sect” lasts, the narrative of straight male privilege will never go away, and in fact will likely strengthen. Hence any “renorming of monogamy” will be, in effect and intent, to legitimize only female infidelity. When it comes gays, bis, etc. they already do whatever they want and the culture has offered no criticism for at least 30 years.

  9. Escoffier

    I recall this from some blog, may have been made up but it was certainly plausible.

    A married couple decide to go “open.” Mutually agreed. Turns out the woman immediately got a string of studs and lost all interest in her husband. Meanwhile, some months into the deal (I forgot how many), the husband still had not banged a single side piece. He approached her about renegotiation and she turned him down flat.

  10. Escoffier

    If younger women are becoming quite as feral and libertine and selfish as you say, then I think the much hope-for, but yet to materialize, strike may actually happen.

  11. deti

    Great discussion. Thanks for posting this.

Leave a Reply