Saturday, November 19, 2011

The Feminist in Every Social Conservative.



Dalrock has recently put up a post (with a very interesting comment thread) which I feel should be commented on.

Many commentators have noted the synergy between social conservatism and feminism.  To quote Dalrock
The underlying feeling is;  who cares, so long as they man up and marry these women once they are done riding the carousel.  It turns out however that the men themselves very much do care.  This is an extremely long time we are expecting men to go before marrying.  During this time we have the unspoken expectation that they will work their tails off to be ready to act as a provider while not getting too used to being single.  Each decade we have pushed the envelope a little further, and we expect each new generation of men to simply suck it up a little more and fill in the gaps.  One can argue that they should have beat another man to the punch and married one of the small number of chaste young submissive women who were looking to marry.  But this is just shuffling the deck chairs around.  At the end of the day this will only determine which men marry in their early to mid 20s and which ones are forced to wait it out;  the overall numbers won’t change because the change is being driven by the choices of women, not men.
Social Conservatives and Feminists have been pretty happy with this deal for the last 40 years.  What could possibly go wrong?

To be fair to the Social Conservatives, I don't think any of them supported the feminist project and its hedonic imperatives, and many of them, if given a choice, would turn the clock back to a traditionalist conception of society. In other words, a society which contained the pre-conditions for militant feminism. What traditionalist's fail to understand, is that traditional society had it's inherent structural problems and it was these problems which gave birth to feminism. (But more on that later)

Although ostensibly, they are two totally opposed movements, Feminism and Social Conservatism both share a commonality which many fail to grasp. Both movements have a warped view of female sexuality; a warped view which ensures a synergy between the two streams of thought. Both feminism and social conservatism share an effectively similar conceptual understanding of woman which ignores her "flesh"; both are in essence ascetic movements.

The first thing that needs to be affirmed is that HYPERGAMY IS NOT A VICE, rather, it is the NATRUAL ORDER OF FEMALE SEXUAL DESIRE.  Now hypergamy needs to be understood as not only as "mating up" in terms of resources and social status, but also as including mating with a sexually attractive mate. As Lady Hillingdon demonstrated, all the social and material resources in the world don't matter if a man lacks the carnal nature of hypergamy. Hypergamy needs to be though of a socio-sexual concept, not a solely a materialist one.

Commentator David Collard puts it as follows:
It seems possible to me that women are built to bond to the first man who masters her [ED]. In a healthy society, this will be a Mr Alpha-Enough who is her first and only lover, and for whom she is expected by social pressure to become Mrs Alpha-Enough. The problems develop when this process fails and she is left permanently bonded to such a man in her mind but in reality married to Mr Another-Guy. Or not married at all.

This is where Roissy’s “five minutes of alpha” being better than a lifetime of beta comes into play.
Now, it should be apparent why feminists deny hypergamy, because  the whole feminist edifice crumbles at acknowledgement of its existence.  Once you acknowledge that a woman's happiness is innately tied to a man who is capable of exerting socio-sexual dominance over a woman, then the whole idea of power-equality gets thrown out of the window.

On the other hand, the Social Conservative denial of hypergamy is more difficult to detect. Social Conservatives don't deny that women want to "mate up", but what they deny, or effectively downplay, is the sexual dimension of hypergamy: the importance of alpha.  For a variety of reasons, Social Conservatives have a real problem in acknowledging female sexuality.  Religious puritanism, historical paternalism and enforced female silence on the matter have engendered a conservative cultural conception of womanhood that paints a picture of the ideal woman as being relatively asexual. Sure there is much approving talk about beauty and love in the context of feminine identity, but as soon the subject of overt female sexuality becomes mentioned, the conservative approval is far more muted or outright critical.

If you look at it, pedastalisation, which is linked to the concept of romantic love,  is really an expression of conservative anti-carnality. Women in mainstream conservative thought are are "above" the grubby desires of men, their purity and beauty as a sex, seems to disassociate them from any form of bodily function. It is a disconcerting thought to imagine the beautiful princess as moving her bowels or passing wind; and yet she does. Dante in his admiration of Beatrice never really raises the subject of tinea or body odour, because mention of such fleshy maladies brings Beatrice back to earth  and out of the heavens. The flesh makes us real. So entrenched is the traditional conservative pedestalisation idealisation of women that that it shocks them when a woman's "fleshiness" is made evident.

Game, which is basically and understanding of female sexual desire, is attacked by Conservatives with pretty much the same language as used by its feminist critics, seeing it as some form of manipulation. It shocks the conservative that the pretty Taylor-Swift-like girl actually has desires of sexual ravishment. Indeed when sweet Taylor gets carnally intimate with Tommy the thug, the only explanation that the conservative gives is that Taylor was manipulated into performing the depraved acts. Never does the Social Conservative acknowledge that the woman is finding the manipulation extremely pleasurable and that she is allowing herself to be manipulated. There seems to be a failure to recognise the moral agency of women when it comes to sexual matters because the ideal conservative woman is relatively asexual (except when it comes to reproduction) This, of course, plays into directly into feminist hands when they wish to avoid the moral consequences of their actions.

The hi-jacking of Christianity by its ascetic-members has tended to downplay the carnal component of male /female relationships, instead focusing on the moral virtues. Christian romantic love, as formulated by these gnostics, was all agape and no eros. Love in this context effectively become a relationship between two disembodied souls, and practically, this is manifest in how Christians give each other marital advice. Its all about care and communication, treating each other fairly and justly, but far less talk about looking sharp, keeping in shape and eliciting sexual desire in each other. In fact, a lot of the ascetic-Romantic conception of love seems to be premised on the fact that corporal reality doesn't matter.  For example, if a husband were to say that he doesn't find his obese wife--who still loves him-- attractive, opprobrium will usually be directed towards him and he would be attributed with moral fault. Apparently, according to the ascetics, love is meant to conquer all, including obesity, halitosis and flatulence.


This Social Conservative position stems from the rather too dominant ascetic's streak in Christian tradition, which was evidenced in the love of mysticism and hatred of earthly reality. These types tend to conflate Christ's sacrificial love with erotic love, which are two separate things. I can chose to sacrifice may life for a woman, but I can't choose to have an erection in the presence of an unattractive woman. Sexual attraction is not a choice, it's a physiological response, and the fact that the flesh is indifferent to moral virtue puts the ascetic types into a tizzy.

Whilst Social Conservatism and Feminism are two different ideological currents, both share the same effective conception of female nature; a nature that devoid of fleshy biological sexuality. Hypergamy strikes at the core of feminism in flatly refuting it's gender equality and it strikes at Social Conservatism by upturning it's conception of the feminine; a conception that is central to its understanding of sexuality. What the Social Conservatives fail to understand is that their conception of de-sexualised femininity--as if erotic didn't matter-- effectively provided and continues to provide the ideological justification which feeds feminist beast.

If a feminist says she wants to pursue a traditional masculine career such as a lumberjack, a conservative will grasp at all sort of reasons why a woman shouldn't be a lumberjack, usually arguing some sort of functional limitation. All it takes to prove that a woman can successfully perform the function, is for a woman to successfully perform the function; demolishing the Conservative's argument. If we admit the erotic dimension to the question however, we could rather successfully argue that masculine jobs make a woman sexually unattractive by masculinising her. Taking on a masculine job is the equivalent of voluntary hirsutism (NSFW). But this of course pre-supposes that a sexual argument is a culturally valid type of argument, something which social conservatism dismisses from the outset as a "base approach" to the subject.


31 comments:

Keoni Galt said...

A brilliant dissertation on a most oft misunderstood topic. Well done, SP.

Kathy Farrelly said...

What David Collard says goes to the heart of the matter.. Women who sleep with many men just cannot bond when they marry.. Men on the other hand (provided their partner count is not exorbitant) don't have that problem. They can compartmentalize sex.. Women can't.

So a man should marry a virgin or at the very least a woman who has had only one or two partners.. He should then make sure that sex is very frequent.. It is the glue that binds a marriage..

Of all of the marriages I know of that have broken up the one common denominator was lack of sex.. I am not saying that this was the fault of the man, here..

What I am saying is, is that a man must take matters into his own hands and not accept the weak and insipid excuses proffered by his wife when she declines sex..

This is where gaming the wife comes in handy.

She will never ever think of having sex with another man if you frequently sex her up.

Sex does indeed inextricably bind and bond a couple . In the 16 years (anniversary today) of our marriage I have never ever once thought of having sex with another man.. ;)

Will S. said...

Spot on, Slumlord.

trent13 said...

With regards to the Christian fear of human sexuality, it seems to me that these puritanical elements weren't something found in Christian tradition. Sexuality is not a sin according to the Church, never has been, and the recognition of it was the whole point behind Christian modesty and gender roles. I generally agree with Dalrock's post. What I don't think is true is the idea that women remain as sexual as when they meet the man who masters them. They simply don't desire as much or as frequently (which is why the majority of the burden of modesty was put on women, v. being shared equally). I don't think traditionally there was a failure to recognize the true nature of female sexuality, rather that feminism, in the attempt to equate male and female capabilities introduced the idea that women are and should be as sexually responsive as men are. They might object to being objectified as sex objects, but it is part and parcel with their independent, masculinized mode to be highly-sexed sluts. (Not that there is anything wrong with a female, or anyone, being highly-sexed, as you say it is a biological response).

JMSmith said...

Social conservatives almost always accept what I'll call Nylon Stocking Feminists," which is to say career women who see nothing wrong with female CEO's, generals, and all-in wrestlers, but are conservative on all other social issues. When most social conservatives think "feminist," they picture an angry lesbian with unshaved legs. Let's call them the Hairy Legged Feminists. I think the NSF's have done more damage to the sexual economy of western societies than the HLF's because they are more numerous, because they are largely unchecked, and because their very being saps the source of sexual desire.

Social conservatives should accept Game insofar as it endorses the idea that gender roles, patriarchy and monogamy are (a) inseparable, and (b) conducive to general happiness and social stability. They are inseparable because you won't get widespread monogamy unless society produces a large number of dominant males. They are conducive to general happiness and social stability because thy maximize the number of women who get a mate who is "alpha enough" and the number of men who get a mate who doesn't come with 100,000 miles already on the odometer.

One other thing I'll say for Game is that seems to have put an end to men's anxiety about sexual technique. In the early days of the sexual revolution, back in the bad old 1970s, you would find men anxiously studying bizarre coital positions, thrusting styles, and the fabled erogenous zones. I remember thinking, in the early 1980s, that this was an approach that seemed to work only between homosexuals.

With that said, social conservatives have to denounce nihilistic game, which separates monogamy from gender roles and patriarchy and is conducive to general unhappiness and social instability. Without the social structures of patriarchy, gender roles, and monogamy, female hypergamy produces a world in which very few women can find a man who is "alpha enough," and very few men can find a woman who doesn't burn oil.

Renaissance Ubermensch said...

If the flesh is indifferent to moral virtue, then what incentive does anyone have to be moral?

Terrifying implications.

Gott ist tott.

Simon Grey said...

"With regards to the Christian fear of human sexuality, it seems to me that these puritanical elements weren't something found in Christian tradition. Sexuality is not a sin according to the Church..."

A couple of things. First, the church does not get to determine sin, God does. It doesn't matter what the church thinks about female sexuality, nor does it matter if Christian tradition declares it to be sin. What matters is what God says (or doesn't say) about the matter.

Second, there are plenty of Christian traditions that have taught fear of human sexuality. The first major proponent of this doctrine started around 90 AD with the Gnostics. We're still living with the consequences of puritanism. This unbiblical teaching has often been part of Christian tradition because there has always been a difference between what God says and what his (nominal) followers actually tech and do.

Simon Grey said...

* "tech"="teach" in last sentence of above comment.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Keoni and Will.

Thanks!

@Kathy

I think what men need to be taught is "wife management", and well managed wife is not just a sexual woman but a happy one as well. When the wife starts denying her husband sex, then that is a sign that something is wrong with the relationship. Sexlessness is usually a symptom of some other underlying disease.

In my experience, what usually kills the relationship is either chronic external stress, where the couple neglect each other due to preoccupation with other things, or an inversion of the natural power dynamic of the relationship. When a wife tells me that she is sick of "mothering" her husband or living with him like a "brother" then I know the marriage is in serious difficulty.


She will never ever think of having sex with another man if you frequently sex her up.

In my experience, most women aren't carousel riders that most of the manosphere make them out to be, the problem is that most men out there have a fair amount of beta, combined with laxity of the divorce laws, means that may women choose to keep trading until they find their alpha male. The trad solution to this is make divorce harder, but all that results is in a lot of sexless unhappy "stable" marriages. It's hardly a good state of affairs I think.

The Social Pathologist said...

@ Trent13

Respectfully Trent, I disagree. This is from Benedict's Encyclical Deus Cartias Est,

Nowadays Christianity of the past is often criticized as having been opposed to the body; and it is quite true that tendencies of this sort have always existed[ED]. Yet the contemporary way of exalting the body is deceptive. Eros, reduced to pure “sex”, has become a commodity, a mere “thing” to be bought and sold, or rather, man himself becomes a commodity.

It's one thing when I make the assertion, it's another when the Pope acknowledges it. It's interesting in this passage that Pope seems to be trying to legitimise Eros, but once again, due to the religious tradition conflates it with agape. If I could express this another way, it would like trying to see hunger(as in our desire for nutrition) in terms of the sacrificial love of Christ. There is a conflation of natures, this is where I think the Church errs. What needs to be asserted, I think, is that Eros and agape are two distinct things and Eros needs to be controlled by reason, not love.

With regard to coital frequency. Yes, there is a variation, but to put things politely, you'd be quite astounded at how a woman's libido gets fired up once the natural order is restored.

The Social Pathologist said...

@JMSmith

With that said, social conservatives have to denounce nihilistic game, which separates monogamy from gender roles and patriarchy and is conducive to general unhappiness and social instability

You've got no disagreement with me there. Game is all about gender assertion. Social Conservatism needs to rediscover the Eros and legitimise it. Too much hyper-intellectualising about it effectively neuters the concept. Gender is primarily about the flesh but as long as the gnostic type keep de-legitimising it, they keep undercutting the Social Conservative movement.

@Renaissance Superman

There is not incentive for the atheist, for the Christian, it's the love of God or the avoidance of Hell.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Simon

First, the church does not get to determine sin, God does. It doesn't matter what the church thinks about female sexuality, nor does it matter if Christian tradition declares it to be sin. What matters is what God says (or doesn't say) about the matter.

Bingo. Well Said Simon!

The problem with tradition is that it can contain erroneous components.
The Early Chruch fathers had no Christian tradition to draw on, instead they tried to find out what God wanted. In fact, Christianity, which came about from the Jewish tradition, was profound deviation from it. Tradition is to be given respect but not a bended knee.

Dr. Φ said...

It shocks the conservative that the pretty Taylor-Swift-like girl actually has desires of sexual ravishment. Indeed when sweet Taylor gets carnally intimate with Tommy the thug, the only explanation that the conservative gives is that Taylor was manipulated into performing the depraved acts.

Wait . . . what? WHAT? Because I googled "Taylor Swift Tommy the Thug" and only got hits on the hilarious "Thug Story" rap single she recorded with T-Paine.

I am morally certain Taylor Swift never passes wind!

Jonathan said...

Brilliant post! This really clarifies for me one thing a western Christian resurgence would need to be successful.

CL said...

Sure there is much approving talk about beauty and love in the context of feminine identity, but as soon the subject of overt female sexuality becomes mentioned, the conservative approval is far more muted or outright critical.

I do tire of that. You have gone into more detail than I did, but the theme is similar to mine when I wrote Hypocrisy and Female Sexuality. The anti-carnality really gets on my nerves; these people don't realise how difficult they make it for people to not just react and go to the other extreme when it starts to be not worth the effort to maintain the represion.

Anonymous Protestant said...

Hypergamy properly understood includes such simple things as "women prefer to mate with a man taller than they". Feminists cannot accept this because it reveals that women and men are not the same in their desires and needs. Since feminism is founded in part on exactly the opposite - the idea that men and women are the same, just with different "bits" here and there, hypergamy actually demolishes feminism.

I still think that much of what passes for modern Christian thought on women and sexuality is a remnant from the latter half of the 19th century. Between the Romantics and the upper class Victorians, as SP points out the entire carnal nature of women was painted over. There's nothing in Scripture to support this. Some of what the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write is pretty clear on the duties of wives to husbands and husband to wives. The Song of Songs is even more clear. And nothing in any Christian canon requires, or even allows, us to jettison anything from the O.T. Of course, many, many people who profess Christianity never read their Scripture, or read only the "red letters", or read only the Gospels, etc. Unfortunately some of the modern translations are so unreadable as to actually discourage study.


"Game" so far as I can tell it is compatible with God's ordained offices of husband and wife. This is not to tolerate the fornicators in bars and nightclubs who misuse God's gifts. It is rather to observe that human nature does not change, no matter how hard political movements and radicals try to pretend otherwise.

The Social Pathologist said...

Thanks for dropping by, AP.

I still think that much of what passes for modern Christian thought on women and sexuality is a remnant from the latter half of the 19th century. Between the Romantics and the upper class Victorians, as SP points out the entire carnal nature of women was painted over.

I'm in broad agreement with you here. The impression that I get is that Medieval Christianity seemed to be a bit more pragmatic with regard to sexuality than later on.

Social conservatives should accept Game insofar as it endorses the idea that gender roles, patriarchy and monogamy are (a) inseparable, and (b) conducive to general happiness and social stability.

Agree. I think that social conservatives conflate Game with Hedonism and see game as a form of sexual manipulation. What many of them fail to understand is that a man with alpha behavior satisfies his wife emotionally; he in effect makes himself more lovable to her. The sexuality flows from this emotional satisfaction.

Anonymous said...

At least to this social conservative, you're going to have to work harder to sell the idea that hypergamy, as it is generally expressed, is not a vice. Here's a piece I wish I'd written, that does a splendid job of pointing out the trouble with 'alpha' behavior. I cannot believe that it is right and proper for women to select for that. It strikes me as something akin to men fetishizing breasts to the point of liking implants - it's a particularly unnatural and dangerous form of superficiality. If that is what it is, not only should it not be pandered to; it should be denounced left and right as the character defect, the symptom of the Fall, that it is.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Anon 3:11

You've raised some important and critical points.


I cannot believe that it is right and proper for women to select for that

And yet they do. Repeat after me, the flesh is indifferent to moral virtue.
Women are basing their mate choice on sexual attraction only. I agree with you that its wrong but the solution is not to pretend that these instincts do not exist or have to be ignored but to recognise the fact. The ideal solution is to make the virtuous sexually attractive whilst remaining virtuous.

I think a proper answer to your comment deserves a post and I'll try to put one up in the next few days.

Anonymous said...

Sorry for the double-comment; I'm apparently up against a 4096 character limit.

I'd really appreciate an in-depth post, because this is something I've been wrestling with. If you're doing one, here's some more fodder for it. I'm not really as convinced of the anti-game position as I sound, but since this probably catalogs a fair bit of the so-con opposition, I might as well state the case with force.

The flesh is indeed indifferent to moral virtue, but I wot not how (traditional) Christianity ignores the fact; it just demands mortification of the flesh - fidelity, dutifulness, and perseverence, even when one is not happy. The hallmark of a fallen world is that many things that seem pleasant are actually poisonous, and (worse, when one is pressed to choose) vice-versa.

In this case, I can't embrace the claim that 'alpha' traits and behaviors are generally good things to pursue.

I can't shake the prejudice - admittedly, forged in schoolyards, locker rooms, and one Amway meeting someone once made the mistake of inviting me to see - that 'confident' people tend to be thoughtless people, that 99% of what is commonly called 'confidence' is actually just pride. When Roissy says 'irrational self confidence'; I think 'Long Term Capital Management'. Should women reward that? What are the consequences - long term, if you will - of them doing so?

Ambition? C.S. Lewis once noted that before the 18th century, ambition was universally and unreservedly considered a vice, a form of hubris, by Christian and pagan alike. Were they wrong? What are the practical consequences of standing that on its head, rewarding ambition for its own sake, as something desirable in itself? Something like this, perhaps?

I shouldn't have to say anything about the 'dark triad' traits.

What of mistreating women? And it is mistreatment, even if the object doesn't recognize it as such. Even Roissy, in a post lavishing (thoroughly deserved) scorn on Bill Bennett, acknowledges that there's something fundamentally screwed up about a woman 'getting aroused by a backhanded compliment but remaining unmoved by a sincere compliment'. He even comes close to openly condemning women 'rejecting your gentlemanly kindness for an aloof badboy', 'getting bored of your beta personality', growing unamused by an 'honorable hubby' - well, read it yourself. If Roissy, of all people, can see that that's ass backwards, that there's something in all that that's deeply at odds with decency, how do Christians get off trying to baptize it?

Anonymous said...

When you speak of 'instincts', you seem to be speaking of them as if they must be treated as given. At the very least, you must see that that principle runs counter to the whole project of moral education, and if true, renders it futile. Lewis, again:

St Augustine defines virtue as ordo amoris, the ordinate condition of the affections in which every object is accorded that kind of degree of love which is appropriate to it. Aristotle says that the aim of education is to make the pupil like and dislike what he ought. When the age for reflective thought comes, the pupil who has been thus trained in 'ordinate affections' or 'just sentiments' will easily find the first principles in Ethics; but to the corrupt man they will never be visible at all and he can make no progress in that science. Plato before him had said the same. The little human animal will not at first have the right responses. It must be trained to feel pleasure, liking, disgust, and hatred at those things which really are pleasant, likeable, disgusting and hateful. In the Republic, the well-nurtured youth is one 'who would see most clearly whatever was amiss in ill-made works of man or ill-grown works of nature, and with a just distaste would blame and hate the ugly even from his earliest years and would give delighted praise to beauty, receiving it into his soul and being nourished by it, so that he becomes a man of gentle heart. All this before he is of an age to reason; so that when Reason at length comes to him, then, bred as he has been, he will hold out his hands in welcome and recognize her because of the affinity he bears to her.'

Just so. Was the project futile from the start? If not, why is it inapplicable here? Why can women not be taught to blame and hate the ugly as they ought? If humility, for instance, is 'unsexy', how can it be right to teach men to swagger like silverbacks instead of teaching women to be more than animals? I don't deny the validity of game, the 'importance' of alpha, etc., etc.; I just can't see how it can be good. At best it may 'save' marriages to women who should never have been touched in the first place, but at what cost?

Anonymous said...

...last one...I think. Not sure how this slipped my mind yesterday, since it's one of the things about Game I'm least certain can be reconciled with Christianity, but:

Every Game site I have seen, nice and supposedly marriage-oriented or nihilistic and bedpost notch-oriented, has denounced 'one-itis' in no uncertain terms, and has advised men to behave as if they have 'options'. From a site typical of the former, one you've got on your blogroll: "So the criteria for Jennifer [the writer's wife] hanging with me is that I get copious sex or I walk and find someone else that will. And I would. She knows I would. I know that she knows I would. And she knows that I know that she knows I would. Hence she becomes my personal f--- toy."

Attractive to women? Yes, sadly. But the whole point of Christian marriage is that one doesn't have options. Your wife turned into a frigid shrew? That's horrible, but you made a vow 'for better or worse'; it's worse; do your duty. 'Options' and 'duty', here, seem to me to be totally irreconcilable; Christian marriage seems to explicitly demand something that Game calls one of the most unattractive 'beta' mindsets and behaviors. And likewise for women: they, too, are called to duty, not options, and Christian marriage seems to explicitly demand that they suppress in themselves a trait that Game excuses and caters to.

The Social Pathologist said...

@ Anon

You might be interested in this old post of mine. While a cobble up a post.

The Social Pathologist said...

Oops, The link is here.

Doug1 said...

Very insightful post.

The Social Pathologist said...

Thanks Doug.

Dulantha said...

Feminism is not based on the natural femininity of women, that is the most important thing what we must understand first. Feminism is not accepting the real nature of sexuality. That is why feminists do not like to act as human females.

Orlando Braga said...



«On the other hand, the Social Conservative denial of hypergamy is more difficult to detect. Social Conservatives don't deny that women want to "mate up", but what they deny, or effectively downplay, is the sexual dimension of hypergamy: the importance of alpha.»

There are 1/ a naturalistic logical fallacy (look for E. G. Moore, on Google) and 2/ a fallacy of composition.

A) The anthropomorphism of the “wolf pack Alpha Male” is a naturalistic fallacy. Libido is not the only characteristic of human bonds: we have also Eros, Philia and Agape. As far as the concept of “hypergamy” is based upon solely on Libido, and may be a bit also upon Eros, we still miss, in your argument, Philia and Agape.

All the four categories, Libido, Eros, Philia and Agape, are present at a sound woman/man sexual bond. The problem is that the contemporaneous culture — in general — cut off the last two categories. A human being is not a wolf.

B) The fallacy of composition consists on making up a whole out of a part. The fact that some people — even if in majority — behaves in a certain way, or have a determined world concept and vision, does not mean that everybody behaves in the same manner.

C) Ronald Reagan was a social conservative. Just look at the sound relationship he had with Nancy, and we can see in it the four categories aforementioned: Libido (of course, physical male and female sexuality), Eros (the mutual desire), Philia (the strong friendship bond that endures a lifetime) and Agape (that gives a relationship a metaphysical sense of life).


Anonymous said...

Brokersring.com - Learn how to turn $500 into $5,000 in a month!

[url=http://www.brokersring.com/]Make Money Online[/url] - The Secret Reveled with Binary Option

Binary Options is the way to [url=http://www.brokersring.com/]make money[/url] securely online

Elle said...

David Collard's comment made me cry because it made so much sense. I have been struggling with the awful guilt of still thinking about my ex from YEARS AGO. I never had sex with my "first love". (ha) of four years but I bonded with him and was miserable for years because of it. I was 15 when we started dating and 19 when he cut it off. I thought he would save me from my family and love me forever. I thought of him as my husband at the time and wanted to die when it was over. I'm ashamed that I married in the midst of conflicting feelings because it wasn't at all fair to my amazing husband. But I am selfishly grateful he was naive enough at the time to want me so as he is just an amazing, amazing man. I was a horrid, terrible, damaged wife. Once he Alphaed up however, I stopped thinking about the five minutes of alpha in my youth. But it was a long time before we figured any of this out. There is more to our story but blogs like this one, which emphasize game in marriage in conjunction with religion, have been instrumental in turning our marriage around and renewing our faith. I can't believe the joy that comes from submitting to my husband. The downside is trying not to get down about what a terrible shrew I was. I want to apologize to my husband every day and throw myself at his feet. Anyway, thank you for a very informative site and articles like these. What a blessing.

Take care

lovethepossibility said...

I'm quite impressed by this post. Thanks.