Quote of the day—Aaron Ben-Zeév

Women who sell their sexuality for money are regarded as whores, while women who give their sexuality for free are sluts.

In order to be considered a “nice girl,” women are more likely to understate the number of people they have slept with, whereas men typically boast and exaggerate their sexual history. Indeed, embedded in our culture and language are opposing attitudes to women and men who have had sexual relationships with many people. Thus, while the term “slut” is defined as “an insulting word for a woman whose sexual behavior is considered immoral,” the corresponding male term “stud” is defined as “a man who is admired for being sexually attractive and good at sex”

..

The difference may well be due to the man having to risk rejection by females, thus his ‘success’ is valued by other females as social proof of his value as a sex partner. In contrast, the vast majority of females risk very little when propositioning a man, yet even so that same vast majority of females actively disguise their intentions so as to maintain plausible deniability of their interest in a man, thus risking less than nothing. Thus there’s nothing to value (and much to disvalue) in such female behavior and the connotations of the word ‘slut’ reflect that.

Aaron Ben-Zeév
Ph.D.
September 21, 2016
Women’s Right to Say YES to Sexuality: Respecting and enhancing female sexual performance
[I found the article fascinating.—Joe]

21 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Aaron Ben-Zeév

  1. (((Ben-Zeev))) argues for more of the degeneracy that’s destroying the West. But I’m supposed to believe that “Cultural Marxism” is just a conspiracy theory.

    • One could argue Ben-Zeev is suggesting more freedom of thought and choice. I thought the destructive force destroying the West was oppressive government.

      • But to make the government steadily more oppressive and all powerful one must change people’s perceptions so the oppression and loss of liberty is not only not resisted, but welcomed and demanded, and for that to happen the society must become disordered. And that requires that people be separated from others and look to the government for the financial, emotional, and physical support that once came from a family and a spouse. As the quote in Brave New World*, “When everyone has everyone, no one has anyone.”

        *The movie from about 1970. I can’t remember if it was in the book, too.

      • A self-disciplined society has no need of laws. The reason we have child support laws is because otherwise some number of people wouldn’t support their children. The reason we have environmental laws is that some number of companies dumped contaminants on the ground or into rivers, making people sick and causing public support for more laws and enforcement. The reason it’s illegal to own slaves is that some number of people would happily do so, but the majority of Americans find it unacceptable, so it’s been outlawed in America.

        Let me try this another way. Why is it unsafe to loiter on Mugme Street after dark? Is the answer government oppression? Or is the problem that some dirt bags hang out there and commit crimes?

        The heart of the disagreement is this: when children grow up in stable homes with their biological parents, they are less likely to engage in anti-social behaviors. Promiscuity increases the rate of unwed births, and decreases the rate at which people stay married. As such it is antisocial and should be discouraged. It is true that often more emphasis is placed on female chastity when in reality it is just as important for personal happiness and social stability that men confine their sexual activity to their wives.

        Did you read this when it went around? http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/240037/marxist-feminisms-ruined-lives-mallory-millett

        • Thanks for the elaboration. I understand what you are saying now.

          I just read the article by Mallory Millett. It seems vaguely familiar.

          I understand the thesis of the article. But it seems to me there are some holes in it such that freedom and equality can easily exist without destruction of enduring relationships. For example, a fundamentalist Muslim might insist that “allowing women to be educated” or show their face or ankles in public leads to the destruction of society. Yet we know a more free society has many advantages and we can easily make the argument that it is far superior to the Muslim ideal.

          At some point I think it will boil down to how you measure the health of society. There are many axis’s to compare on. In your example a stable two parent households warrants a heavy weighting. If that were the only measurement, which I realize you are not advocating, the Muslim model may end up with a better ranking than a more free model. There are many trade-offs and finding the “best” set of social and legal constraints depends upon the weighting of the various axis’s and the environment in which the “society under test” is subject to.

          My thesis is that a diverse set of social mores results in a more resilient society able to match the needs of the individuals as well as better tolerance of diverse individual needs and changing environments. For example, Amish society may contribute in extremely valuable and unique ways and a high tech society in others depending upon unknowable future environments. And there are people who would flourish in one society and be crushed by the other. Advocating “one true way” is harmful to individuals who are not well suited to those constraints as well as being risky for the long term functioning of society. Social diversity obviously isn’t optimal for a stable environment and with little variation in individual needs and capabilities. But a stable environment and interchangeable people is not reality.

        • Grendel, thanks for that link, I hadn’t seen that.
          Some unrelated/ unconnected (?) thoughts after reading that:

          1. So many mothers today seem to be raising their boys to be the sort of men they don’t want to take as partners.

          2. Either Kim Du Toit or his wife once wrote that men build societies and women civilize them, and since about fifty years ago, Western societies can sure use some better civilizing.

          3. I think the patriarchy was invented by a woman who was tired of waiting for her brothers (who were too busy posturing and strutting around trying to lay the tribal beauties) to help her raise the children she had by one of the alpha males in the tribe, and thought that if she offered known paternity, sex, and what Heinlein in “Stranger in a Strange Land” referred to as “growing closer” to one man who was handsome and capable, but not the tribal big man, she and her children would benefit.

          And the seeds of western civilization and science and the pre-feminist society we see being dismantled today in which women were viewed as ethically better than men.

  2. Ask any woman and a slut or tramp is any other woman who is younger, better looking or more available than they are.

    Meow.

    • Try again! There are very few women who would use the word “slut” or “tramp” on another woman. That is slut shaming and we don’t do it to each other. Younger may not be more advantageous, maybe inexperienced, but young. Possibly better looking, but what about the rest of the package? And more available? I think anyone can be as available as they want to be. 😉

      • You need to get out more.

        Those literal words may or may not be used, but sexual competition among females is alive and well, and shaming (again, not necessarily using literally those 2 vocabulary items) is one of the very active tools in the toolbox.

  3. The fact that different behavior and standards stem from a fundamentally different reproductive strategy should be obvious to any but the most highly educated. For all of history, right up until the modern welfare state appeared, a woman’s ability to have children that survived and thrived was largely a matter of successfully tying herself to a successful provider, because of all the obvious requirements of childbearing and rearing. The way a male maximizes the number of surviving children is the spread his seed far and wide among as many healthy young women as he can; if he can get some cuckold to bear the cost to raise them, so much the better. Or if he can have multiple wives / concubines that are supported by his tribe/clan, that’s great, too. Or just marry them young, wear them out with continuous childbearing, then marry another young one when the first wife dies.

    Different biology -> different requirements for biological success -> different behavior. Duh. Generally speaking, when a young woman emulates a man’s mating behavior, it affects her mind (and body) very differently than it does a male. Hence the middle-age, unmarried, formerly very cute and now average-looking, near the end of her biological clock and no longer able to attract a mate female; she is likely to have a total melt-down and blame men for her failure to recognize reality. Young women claim to not like the attention (unless it’s from a rich/handsome alpha sort, hence the popularity of 50 shades of gray), but them complain about the lack of attention when they turn invisible once they are past prime marriage years.

    Put another way: Why would a [fit, healthy, 30 YO, well educated, well employed, MALE] prefer a [28 year old, fertility crashing, large-number of previous partners, fading beauty FEMALE] over a [21 year old virgin female] if he’s planning on starting a family? There is precious little reason. The 28-yo refuses to admit that. They want it all, failing to realize that nobody can have it all because of opportunity costs. But they think they can, so they must blame someone, because they are so special they cannot possibly be to blame.

    This basic truth is hard-coded in our wetware, whether we are fully aware of it or not. The left doesn’t want us to be a slave to biology, because that undercuts their entire world-view and political agenda. Sorry, folks: while there are ranges and variations, biology rules us way more than we’d like to believe.

      • Two things: I was speaking about averages and historical biology/programming, and modern society and the pill has separated sex/reproduction/marriage in the minds of many people.

        But please note the part about cuckold support. A woman might well get married to the “best” she could (meaning an ordinary guy with a job), but have a fling with a handsome dude (better genes) and let her so-so husband support the bastard. She gets the improved genes in her child, Mr. Handsome gets a child he doesn’t have to support, and (in many cases) Mr. Cuckold doesn’t know why his son is more handsome than he is, but chalks it up to recessive genes and accepts it (unless something obvious, like skin color, is rather unexpected). Older women are still instinctively looking for a partner/tribe, as are older men. There are exceptions, but the “crazy old cat lady” is a stereotype rooted in real-life occurrence.

        The first article: There are all sorts of people in the world. 2-3% are clinically psychopath / sociopath. Older men who have lost libido may not care nearly as much; or maybe they are just really tired and they know their squeeze will come back to them without someone else’s child for them to support or diseases, so it’s a low-cost decision given modern medicine.

          • Huh. May have too.
            Certainly it’s possible that millions of years as a small tribes of hunter-gatherers with a more “group-oriented” mating strategy has only been much more recently largely altered by more monogamous situations. But the model I put forth explains a lot of human behavior, if imperfectly. OTOH, it’s hard argue persuasively that it (the modern/western life-pairing) doesn’t tend to maximize productivity of a culture compared to the alternatives.

  4. A response to an excerpt from a tremendous amount of generalizations in a comment above:

    “A woman might well get married to the “best” she could (meaning an ordinary guy with a job), but have a fling with a handsome dude (better genes) and let her so-so husband support the bastard. She gets the improved genes in her child, Mr. Handsome gets a child he doesn’t have to support, and (in many cases) Mr. Cuckold doesn’t know why his son is more handsome than he is, but chalks it up to recessive genes and accepts it (unless something obvious, like skin color, is rather unexpected). Older women are still instinctively looking for a partner/tribe, as are older men. There are exceptions, but the “crazy old cat lady” is a stereotype rooted in real-life occurrence.”

    A woman might get married to the “best” she could. Really, are women so calculating? How many women did the “ordinary” guy sleep with on the side? Those need to part of this equation. A handsome dude does not make a reason for a fling. Lots of truly handsome dudes are so full of themselves they make women nauseous. Maybe the man married the “best” he could.

    And many men like the whole genes discussion and the rationale to spread their seed far and wide. I read Sex at Dawn and still question its basic premise. I think it is a book to support what some men think they want to do (find solid logical rationale to have sex with as many women as possible). There are tribes where women do the choosing of partners and sleep with as many men as possible.

    And one man raising another man’s son? If a child did result from the women’s affair, I bet they both know it because that child might not look like either of them. And why is the man she is having an affair with necessarily handsome? Maybe older women are looking for a partner or tribe because men have checked out on life and remain stationary in their easy chair.

    And the older cat lady stereotype. Where does that fall into the disinterested, tv watching male stereotype?

    • Crazy Cat Lady is a completely different stereotype from Disinterested TV Watching Male.

      They might both be true, or both be false; but if so it’s a complete accident–they aren’t linked in any sense at all.

  5. ” If a child did result from the women’s affair, I bet they both know it because that child might not look like either of them.”

    Not so fast, there. As long as she stays within his and/or her physical type, this may never be noticed, especially during the child’s early years. Those early years are important for getting the parents to bond to the child. Once that is accomplished, the child is golden, for the most part, for most people. The child is rarely tossed out in their later years, when this deception is more likely to be discovered. More commonly, it is the woman and the marriage who suffers from the disclosure.

Comments are closed.