Moral Codes and Alpha Bros

Olive

I'm an eater with a writing problem. I say I blog and write stories, but most of the time I'm thinking about what I'll have for lunch and supper or daydreaming about my current writing project. I like to discuss books, movies, music and sports. I'm passionate about my faith and my family, and believe that finding joy and gratitude in our everyday lives is as powerful as changing the world.

Related Post Roulette

60 Responses

  1. Chip Daniels says:

    What i find striking is how these people just, in their own words, make themselves sound awful. Like the sort of people you wouldn’t want to spend five minutes in a room with, the sort you would never want your son or daughter to bring home.

    They just seem to be filled with a churning rage and loathing, both for themselves and others. Their faith doesn’t seem to spring from a place of joy and love for humankind, but a dark bitterness and eagerness to inflict suffering.Report

  2. fillyjonk says:

    It’s a power thing. The alpha-man wants ALL the power – that list of “dump her immediately” contains things that he would think he should be able to do to her (like “shush” her). But she can’t do to him. No reciprocity; he wants to be the petty despot. No wonder some of these guys wind up “incels.”

    They are men who demand ‘respect” for themselves but are unwilling to grant it to other people (at least: to women, perhaps also to other men and presumably to their eventual children). I am immediately suspicious of a person who demands better treatment than what they give other people.Report

  3. Damon says:

    Well, unrelated to faith….

    Actually, I think the issue of body count IS significant. I’m not going to get into numbers, because the demarcation lines are a bit subjective, but I think if a woman has had many many partners or one night stands, it does impact her ability to pair bond with a man. That’s just not the case with men. There’s research suggesting this. The other issue, at least for me, was marring a woman who had kids. A man raising another man’s kids is cuckoldry. Me, being the selfish bastard that I am, I’m not going to be in a position of providing for said kids with no authority to establish rules. I’m not an ATM. I never wanted my own kids, there was no way in hell I’d marry a woman with kids that were not out of the house, notionally 25 years old or more.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Damon says:

      Studies associate a woman’s high body count with marriage failure, but not a man’s high body count. The flip side that no one wants to talk about is that pron decreases the male’s ability to bond, or even sexually perform. It also does a ton of damage to the inexperienced guy’s expectations, and now for the rot13: Gur thl rkcrpgf ebhtu, hapbzsbegnoyr, naq/be uhzvyvngvat guvatf sebz gur jbzna, gura fur fuhgf qbja rzbgvbanyyl (rvgure juvyr qronfvat urefrys be tvivat hc ba zra).

      Last week, Lee linked to a Vox article about TikTok dating advice.

      https://www.vox.com/culture/23978325/dating-advice-shera-seven-tiktok-sprinkle-sprinkle

      I commented that “I don’t think it’s regressive exactly. It’s more like the cheat codes for playing the game under feminist rules, maybe with some ‘how to find the right person to marry’ mixed in. But the core feminist idea is that the male and female don’t complete each other. Regressive would be compatibility and morality. The Tate stuff is a natural result of an iterative game, although there’s a contrary force within most of us that aspires to a happy life married.”Report

      • Chris in reply to Pinky says:

        There is relationship between premarital partners and divorce. There is not a gender difference in that relationship:

        CiteReport

        • DavidTC in reply to Chris says:

          There is relationship between premarital partners and divorce.

          Technically speaking, we just know there’s a relationship between people _who admit on surveys to_ premarital partners, and divorce.Report

          • pillsy in reply to DavidTC says:

            People lie all the time about their number of partners, but in the US you generally see men inflating the number, and women deflating it. Supply and demand don’t balance when you look at survey results.

            Additionally, it’s generally true that men lie more about this than women.Report

            • DavidTC in reply to pillsy says:

              People lie all the time about their number of partners, but in the US you generally see men inflating the number, and women deflating it. Supply and demand don’t balance when you look at survey results.

              The numbers not balancing do not technically mean that one side is inflating and the other side deflating, it could mean that one side is inflating and the other side inflating _more_, or the opposite. All we know is that at least one group of people are lying.

              But my point was not what ‘generally’ people do, it’s that ‘It is entirely possible that the set of people who think divorce is not acceptable under any circumstances (Usually for religious reasons) and thus stay in failed marriages also includes a large amount of people, men and women both, who will lie about not having previous sexual partners’.

              I.e, if you teach someone that premarital sex and divorce are a horrible things, they will a) not tell anyone about premarital sex, and b) not get divorced even when they should.

              Granted, that only makes sense as an assertation if you think there are people who _should_ get divorced, and it is often hard to get any of the people citing these stats to even admit that.

              Actually, I think that would be an interesting poll here. Let’s postulate this:

              Two people get married very young, let’s say 19. There is no abuse or anything. There are no children. They discover they have utterly incompatible views of how their life should go, and just to make this harder, it’s not any sort of stereotyping or anything, the man is not demanding the woman stay at home. They just have no interests or commonalities, completely different ideas of work/home balance, he likes to travel, she doesn’t, she likes to go out and socialize, he doesn’t, basically, nothing in common but nothing that anyone could even vaguely justify as a ‘legitimate reason’ for a divorce. But they both are not happy, and want out.

              Is it acceptable for these two to divorce? Is this something society should try to stop?Report

              • Pinky in reply to DavidTC says:

                “if you teach someone that premarital sex and divorce are a horrible things, they will a) not tell anyone about premarital sex, and b) not get divorced even when they should”

                They’re also arguably less likely to have engaged in premarital sex, and more likely to have taken the decision to get married more seriously and thus less likely to marry badly.Report

      • InMD in reply to Pinky says:

        I am never going to be one to tell people what kind of dealbreakers they should have for a spouse. Obviously that’s as personal as it gets, and if something like body count is going to haunt someone forever and make even a good relationship untenable then it’s best to avoid people beyond whatever the threshold.

        At the same time I think this kind of checklist, commodification of dating is really unhealthy and unlikely to lead to happiness and success. Part of the reason people are struggling is that by the time they are ready to settle down and get married they’ve turned too many bad experiences and dead end relationships into hard rules of thumb. My wife and I call these ‘Costanza’ excuses.Report

        • Pinky in reply to InMD says:

          The list seems to run the gamut from legitimate advice to possible red flags to out-and-out trollery.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to InMD says:

          Are people allowed to have dealbreakers?
          Men, I mean.
          Isn’t a dealbreaker an indicator of deep insecurity or some other flaw?
          For men, I mean.Report

          • pillsy in reply to Jaybird says:

            Are people allowed to have dealbreakers?
            Men, I mean.

            Who would prevent men from having dealbreakers?

            Isn’t a dealbreaker an indicator of deep insecurity or some other flaw?
            For men, I mean.

            It seems like it depends on the dealbreaker.Report

          • InMD in reply to Jaybird says:

            People are definitely allowed to have dealbreakers, men included and I don’t think every dealbreaker is a sign of a deep insecurity.Report

          • fillyjonk in reply to Jaybird says:

            Men are allowed to have dealbreakers, but also if they have 35 dealbreakers including things like “she wants to vote in elections,” they should not be surprised if interest from women is low.

            (I am MOSTLY exaggerating for humor here, but also: I am very glad to live in a time where my ability to avoid abject poverty is not predicated on finding a man to marry)Report

            • Jaybird in reply to fillyjonk says:

              Well, if *ANYBODY* out there says “I want my significant other to meet the following standards” and then lists 100 things, I would not then be surprised to hear that they have not met anyone who meets their listed standards.

              “I wanted an athletic person, one who read for pleasure, one who could cook, was Catholic, and was interested in sports but not team sports. She wanted to play volleyball but not tennis so I had to turn her away.”

              At this point my suspicion would be that this person got scared and came up with an excuse.Report

            • Pinky in reply to fillyjonk says:

              I don’t know the timeline for sure, but it looks like this was created in November, maybe as a response to the “List of Places Women Absolutely Refuse to Go On a First Date” meme that was circulating in October.Report

              • InMD in reply to Pinky says:

                I have vaguely noticed an Extremely Online war of the sexes, as to who can be the most insufferable on this topic. My assumption is that everyone involved is either a troll or is electing the path of misery.Report

              • pillsy in reply to InMD says:

                It’s great for “engagement”.

                A hate-click is still a click after all.Report

              • pillsy in reply to pillsy says:

                Also in the Good Old Days, when you wanted to vent to your buddies about members of the opposite sex after a breakup/fight/protracted dry spell, you’d do it over drinks in a setting more public than a bar or restaurant, not by broadcasting them to a potential audience of millions in durable, easily searchable, and readily redistributable medium.Report

    • Doctor Jay in reply to Damon says:

      I am in no way going to tell you what works or doesn’t work for you or what you *ought* to do.

      That said, I am familiar with at least two men that raised another mans child as his own, and the result was long-term, committed, and wonderful for all parties. Remember the mother in this situation dumped the prior man. One of them referred to him as the “sperm donor”. I don’t think you can find anyone familiar with these situations that thinks, “that guy shouldn’t have done that, it turned out badly.”

      There’s a concept out there known as “family of choice”. I’m quite familiar, seeing as how I’m adopted – my family was the result of a choice, and it worked really well for me. All families are the result of choice, and that’s an ongoing choice – a choice to stay in the game (by parents) and do your best.Report

  4. Damon says:

    As to the rest of the list….

    Most of the list is generally BS. There’s some I’d agree with, others not. Social Media? I dated a woman who spent a LOT of time on that….like she’d run out of data before the end of the month. She was always asking me to look something up on my phone because she didn’t want to pay for more data. We’re in freaking Zambia on a safari and the first and last thing she does is post to facebook at night before bed and then check the responses when she wakes up. I’m sitting outside, after making us coffee in the morning, looking at the view and she’s on FB checking likes. That was one factor in me ending the relationship.

    Only talks about herself. Yeah, if she’s doing this, she’s not that interested in you anyway. During an initial meeting, sure, everyone’s getting to know each other and talking about themselves, but if she doesn’t take a real interest in you, and getting to know you, when you first meet, she never will, so walk away.Report

    • Doctor Jay in reply to Damon says:

      Social media or no, if someone isn’t at least somewhat curious about you and what you’re up to, it is a very bad sign. I agree completely. This is a universal rule, applies to all genders and sexual preferences, by the way.Report

      • DavidTC in reply to Doctor Jay says:

        This is a universal rule, applies to all genders and sexual preferences, by the way.

        I think that idea right there is a good way around this sort of nonsense.

        Having some personal dealbreaker is one thing, big lists of dealbreakers that only apply to one gender (Which for straight people almost always means ‘applies to the people I am dating but not to me’.) is…an entirely different thing.

        I was going to use some of the examples from the list above, then I read it and realized that absolutely no one could take it seriously.Report

  5. Patrick OHannigan says:

    That’s a thoughtful essay. Thank you for writing it. I missed the “purity culture” fad because I’m older than you and not in the “reformed” Christian camp, but your understanding of grace and human worth echoes some of what Pope John Paul II articulated in his “Theology of the Body.”Report

  6. Jaybird says:

    There’s a phenomenon that probably needs a name.

    Like, let’s say that there’s a Proposition P. Proposition P can be true or it can be false. Heck, it can be true in some circumstances but not others, it can be true enough to say something like “most” or “some” and make judgments like whether it’s “common” or “uncommon” or “rare”.

    If Proposition P is “sexist” or “racist”, some people believe that whether or not Proposition P is “True” is immaterial.

    So when it comes to this discussion, I am reminded of a fabulous observation made in a handful of discussions about dating culture: “(crude term for male body part) is abundant and low value”.

    A vaguely sexist observation. But is it true?

    And if it is true, does anything follow from it?
    (Of course, if it’s sexist, maybe that trumps whether it’s true or not.)Report

  7. InMD says:

    Seems to me that men who take this approach with women are unlikely to find a lot of success. And any woman who accepts that kind of treatment is unlikely to be happy.Report

    • pillsy in reply to InMD says:

      I am less then serenely confident that the target audience is treating this as advice.

      My strong suspicion is that it’s aimed at young men (and in a lot of case like actual boys) who are frustrated with their inability to find or keep girlfriends and reassuring them that those grapes are, indeed, sour.Report

      • InMD in reply to pillsy says:

        Probably so. Nevertheless I truly hate seeing this kind of stuff among men. It is utterly self defeating, to say nothing of being just mean, immature, and wrong.Report

  8. CJColucci says:

    At least these alpha bros will have unusual difficulty in reproducing, which is some comfort.Report

  9. rexknobus says:

    I’m sorry, but have post a “special snowflake/anecdotal” addition. One night, very very early in my relationship with Femrex, she told me about the night that she and several friends (most of whom I knew) compared “body counts.” She ended the tale with “Poor X! She only had ____!” My jaw dropped and I had to ask “Cripes! Only? How many for you?” A little hesitation, but finally…good grief! Nearly five times mine own! What a turn on, for me at least. We’ve been together for over 40 years since, bless her experienced little heart! And I would count her as as fine an example of absolute moral purity as I’ve been lucky enough to know. No kidding.Report

  10. LeeEsq says:

    Body counts seem to be a strange thing to worry about these days because evidence suggests that the amount of casual sex that is going on today is a lot less than it was in the past. Beyond a growing awareness of the importance of consent, I think a big decrease in sex under the influence, which seemed really important to lowering everybody’s inhibitions, is not as frequent as it was during the period between say 1967 and sometime in the late 1990s/early 2000s.Report

  11. LeeEsq says:

    Purity Balls always struck me as a fairly icky way to do the “no sex before marriage, especially if you are a woman” ideal.Report

  12. rexknobus says:

    Well, vis-a-vis the “Dump Her” list. With any care and insight one need not get to the “Dump” stage. How about a “Just Don’t Get Involved” list? Such as: Trump voter; racist; rapist: unable to laugh at my foibles/their foibles/the world’s foibles; disrespect for my goofy likes and/or dislikes (no need to participate, but must politely tolerate); basic cleanliness problem; inability to leave town to see new stuff; habitually rude to service staff. Those will do for a start.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to rexknobus says:

      Oh, you want your significant other to agree with you on things that are important to you and not disagree about moral issues that you care deeply about?

      That’s a nice want list.
      It’d sure be a pity if
      someone
      strawmanned
      it.Report

      • rexknobus in reply to Jaybird says:

        Sure. That’s what I would like. If and when those disagreements arose, some discussion would certainly be warranted, both for their sake and mine. And if disagreements about moral issues deeply cared about aren’t somehow important…then what is? And I don’t understand the straw man reference in this context.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to rexknobus says:

          Eh, periodically, someone comes out a with a list of “dealbreakers” and, inevitably, someone else comes along to critique their list.

          “You care about *THAT*? Seriously?”

          This can turn into some armchair psychoanalysis.

          “Why do you care about that? Were you left alone too much as a child?”

          Attempts to shame people into having a different list.

          “It’s really unattractive to people to have that particular entry on your dealbreaker list.”
          “Having those as dealbreakers is a real red flag.”Report

          • rexknobus in reply to Jaybird says:

            So, are you the “inevitable someone” critiquing my list? I’d be cool with that. But I did go back and look at my list and it seems pretty obviously personal to just me and not particularly applicable to anyone else. The list does start off with a pretty specific and quite currently political item which would be hard for me to overcome. Hard, but perhaps not impossible. Hey, Toni Collette calls me up, tells me she loves The Donald and would like to go out to dinner…who am I to argue?

            If my deal breaker list makes me unattractive to someone, then that seems as if it is fulfilling its purpose. And using it for psychoanalysis might be kind of interesting…or maybe not. The items on the list don’t seem all that odd…to me at least. And no shame-casting here. Everyone! Please make your own list! No test on Friday! Ta!Report

            • Jaybird in reply to rexknobus says:

              “I have this list of dealbreakers.”

              “Weird flex but okay.”

              “You should have this list of dealbreakers.”

              “WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA”

              That said, there are probably some pretty good dealbreakers out that that would be pretty good dealbreakers for, oh, 80% of the folks out there.Report

              • DavidTC in reply to Jaybird says:

                “I have this list of dealbreakers.”

                “Weird flex but okay.”

                There’s very few dealbreakers that you should greet people with, but there probably are a few that it’s worthwhile to sit down and discuss when things are getting serious, although they probably shouldn’t be phrased as ‘dealbreakers’.

                Right: This relationship is getting serious, but, you need to know, I do want children in the next couple of years, and if that’s not something you’re on board with, then we need to think about ending this.

                Wrong: “Dealbreaker time! You must want children!”

                That said, there are probably some pretty good dealbreakers out that that would be pretty good dealbreakers for, oh, 80% of the folks out there.

                Honestly, I sorta feel like anyone who is going to bother to read a list like that _already_ has ‘most obvious things’ as dealbreakers. Sorta of implicitly. It can’t hurt to state them, but they already kinda know.

                And the rest are…the sort of people who end up in abusive or at least sh*tty relationships.

                I feel like this is ‘Do not try to fix him, ladies. That is not your job.’ list. Anyone who is going follow a list that says that, odds are, already know it. (Although someone does need to originally tell young women, I guess.)Report

            • CJColucci in reply to rexknobus says:

              At the risk of stating the obvious, for those who have asked about it often enough that they seem to require some kind of validation, everybody has deal-breakers, and has every right to have them. That said, if you have a big, long list full of stupid s**t, the rest of us can point and laugh, and the list-maker deserves the predictable results of his folly.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci says:

                Yeah, some of those dealbreakers are a real red flag.Report

              • DavidTC in reply to Jaybird says:

                Honestly, hilariously, some of the biggest ‘dealbreakers’ that show up on these list of men are one of the most obvious things that _women_ should use as dealbreakers if men believe they ae dealbreakers.

                Women, if a man has problems with ‘reads horoscopes’, stay the hell away from him…and it actually does not matter if you read horoscopes or think they are the stupidest thing imaginable, that is a giant red flag of “he thinks he can control you to literally any level, even downright trivial hobbies like ‘reading something’.”.Report

          • pillsy in reply to Jaybird says:

            Eh, periodically, someone comes out a with a list of “dealbreakers” and, inevitably, someone else comes along to critique their list.

            Well if you make your dating criteria part of the Discourse, your dating criteria are gonna be part of the Discourse.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to pillsy says:

              Eh, there is always an undercurrent of something like “if your height begins with 5′, swipe left!” and a bunch of guys show up and start talking about how we need to respect our short kings.

              I mean… I agree with how we need to respect our short kings.

              But, guys, please don’t show up in comments explaining that to *HER*.

              She won’t listen and the message you’re trying to send isn’t the one that is going to be received.Report

  13. Doctor Jay says:

    That list looks like satire to me.

    “Plays sports”?

    “Votes”??!

    “Too many plants”???????????

    (I mean if it was “too many plants growing on skin” that would be different).

    Are their people who hold these things?Report