No nice girls need apply

imageMy daughter is a nice girl in the old-fashioned sense — she’s moral and values herself. Her friends are the same — nice, old-fashioned girls.

My daughter has large numbers of friend who are boys. The really like her — but they won’t date her.

High school is peculiarly like regency England. The young men socialize with the nice girls, but date/sleep with the “bad” girls.

The “bad” girls aren’t really aren’t “bad” at all, of course. In this day and age, the girls aren’t making a moral calculation; they’re making a social and economic decision. Ace expanded on this point after reading about the economics of sex:

There are several storylines, two of which are particularly interesting. The one that’s relevant here is 12-year-old Winnifred’s story. She’s very precocious, and “gets it” on an adult level. She notes, for example, that FaceBook and other social media pictures of girls must always at least include the suggestion of being open for sex — of being “DTF,” as she says. (Down to F***.)

She says (or implies) that she’s rather trapped by the current market forces, in which boys just won’t take an interest in girls who don’t broadcast that sexual availability.

Remember, she’s 12.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    Supply and demand. When a Regime changes the culture so that the availability of something increases, even if demand stays the same, the price point drops. After awhile, if it keeps dropping, people won’t be able to sustain high quality. They’ll have to go for low quality, high supply.
     
    The Left call this “trickle down supply” economics and it is something to which their zero sum economic faith is very well suited in creating.

  2. says

    Society makes you a social outcast by exiling you to the edge of the herd, to make you afraid and terrorize you into Obedience. Human instinctively wish to be near the fire, near the center of the group, because they fear dying alone. It’s a strong motivation.
     
    But that’s why I say society can go to hell. Literally and figuratively. Without that fear, society is powerless to enforce their standards. What comes next are resources, but in the context of relationships, sex, and marriage, that’s kind of a drain on resources these days. It’s not like automatically getting rich, like it was in the ancient days vis a vis marriage. The government handles the resource distribution and death squads while society is corrupted to handle the softer totalitarian enforcement via fear and terror. It’s a good combo.
     
    It’s very easy to see where the Left broke things in the US. A few years comparing Japanese methods to American methods, and certain things will show up as a pattern. Japan, a far more fearsomly uniformly conforming society based upon almost totalitarian levels of conformity, should have a lot of things concerning marriage, bethrothal, family business inheritance, etc. Yet, they don’t have America’s sexual market place price drop. Even though they share America’s business restructuring for hiring women out of the family care job. A lot of modern cultural elements can be filtered out as not being the cause of our problems. It’s not jobs. It’s not day care. It’s not two parents working. It’s none of that. It’s the other thing. Starts with an L. Second word is an A.
     
    In order to reconstruct the market place and deflate prices, while returning to males and females the ability to buy the product and relationship they wish using barter or other currency, requires a few things.
     
    1. Reconstruction virtues as being desirable goals.
    2. Boycotting of women or men, by women or men, for certain behaviors that are considered vices or undesirable. Social conformity brought to bear on the non conformists.
    3. Social and economic value is front loaded. It’s what people see. If they see a male getting sex more, they will want to emulate what that male is doing, if other males feel themselves lacking. Females will then see how girls are attracting males and produce traits tailor designed to attract males, that is the instinct. They will emulate other females with recent success.
    4. Social rules are just a slightly more complicated machine. Once it is up and running, it’s easy to maintain. That’s good if your society is good. That’s not so good if your society is evil.
    Those who Obey are merely tools. They don’t to have a say in what the hell they are doing, what they are allowed to pay others for a service, what wages they should obtain in return for a service, or when they should spread their legs. They are Tools. Tools don’t get to tell human masters what to do. A social reconstruction requires breaking down the existing power blocks and executing the current Status Quo heads, returning the power of judgment and free will back in the hands of those most at risk of marketplace fraud: the youngest males and females, with the least experience and least amount of value to offer each other.
     
    Unions, after all, were predicated upon a similar goal were they not?

  3. Kathy from Kansas says

    Kudos to you, Bookworm, for linking this story. The original New York Post article, including the video embedded there, is one of the most important articles I’ve read this year.
    And kudos to you for raising a NICE (in the old sense) daughter! I’m trying to raise my two kids, both of them males, to be chaste and honorable — but it is a job that grows ever more difficult. I find myself continually shaking my head when I look around my little Kansas town. (And if you’ve lost rural Kansas, you are really losing the culture!) I see the slutty clothes and the amount of makeup worn by even very young girls as they walk into the school building, and I just ask myself, “What on earth are their moms thinking?!?!”

  4. Matt_SE says

    I like that the video discussed how women are the enforcers of female sexual norms…none of that patriarchy crap.
    But what women’s group “speaks for women?” Feminists.
    Radical feminists lead the “women’s movement,” and it is they who insist women embrace their sexuality like never before, becoming man-like in their libidos. Just look at the behavior of the characters in “Sex and the City” or “Girls.” The word demure does not spring to mind.
    Maybe this was an outgrowth of Marxist thought; a radical egalitarianism so extreme that it denies there are differences between the sexes.
     
    Whatever the reason, women seem unable/afraid to openly counter the narrative of the RadFems. Like they’re going to be called “sex-traitors” or something. That crap has gotta change. Women need to refute the RadFems publicly when they see damage being done. The RadFems need to be knocked down a few pegs, to realize that their way of seeing things is only ONE way among many…and maybe not that good a way, at that.

  5. says

    To further work up this “economic marketplace” paradigm, I’ll list the virtues and qualities most sought after in women and what it is traded for from the men’s side.
    Women:
    Domesticality: Raising children, cleaning the house, removing fatigue, caring for the children emotionally, and supporting her husband.
    Secondary: Cooking delicious food, bringing a certain atmosphere to the house/home/area, artistic abilities such as painting.
    Tertiary: Fighting or self defense abilities. Protection of the home and family. Obedience to legitimate authority.
     
    When I first came across simulations of that, my natural American cultural reaction was “isn’t this gross chauvnism, how in the world can this ever work and why are the women there reacting so positively to it”. Cultural shock, in more ways than one.
     
    However, note that a marketplace is about risk, investment, and fair trade. If you gave a beggar or some guy 10 billion dollars and he spent most of it on hookers, drugs, and child sex traffickers from the UN… what market did you actually create there? So it can’t just be giving one side a bunch of “resources”. You need “equal value” for “equal worth”, for there to be value created from the market, from the divine alchemical wealth creation.
    Men:
    Protection: Since this sounds even more chauvinistic, it’s hard to figure out a way to write it in a way that makes sense without using old terms. A Knight or bodyguard protects his charge. That is the duty of a warrior sometimes as well. The primary and principle person being protected is the woman that trades her time and value to you. Since she is the source of the resource the man desires, the man would need to risk his life for her in some fashion, to protect that investment. That is an elevation and an evaluation of the service she provides to him, dictated and judged by the service he provides to her. Protection, the utilization of strength and courage to shield those who are weaker and less likely to survive in a battle, such as women and children, is a natural man’s specialization. A warrior’s specialization. A bodyguard’s specialization. A knight’s specialization.
    Examples: escorting your date home when it is evening or night, using your body to physically shield a girl in danger, covering for your woman socially when she is being attacked or resource drained by social vampires, protecting her physical as well as mental health, picking her up or helping her recover if she falls (due to high heels or those mini skirts). Virtues are actions. One acquires virtues by behaving in the correct fashion, not by saying the correct things to the audience. A woman that is the source of valuable services and goods, is a good training partner. The classic interpretation is that women and children get in the way of a warrior or soldier, but a warrior or soldier would not be well trained if their entire life didn’t revolve around exercising the virtue of courage in the presence of women.
    Secondary: Kindness. It’s a complicated kind of kindness. One part soft, one part hard. Ruthless against all enemies to her and you, but kind to allies, neutral children, and her. In summary, treating everyone else as a stranger and as lower in status, but only treating her, your trading partner, as a full human with high status in your eyes. Thus whenever other men and women talk about making her or you do things that doesn’t benefit her, you train yourself to fight the entire world for her sake. To be her ally, when no one else will. That is a kindness in and of itself.
    Tertiary: Economic sustainability and family welfare. This is one of the things husbands and wives should have in common. I rate tertiary because it is less valuable from the male perspective, just as fighting abilities are “less valuable” from a female trading side. Value has distinct meanings and fluctuations. In terms of moral value, family welfare is considered “top” for marriage and husbands/wives. But that’s not how it is in the market place when you are trading. A market place prioritizes “rarity” and “demand”. Even if a man’s protection services are not in high demand for a woman, the woman will consider her prospects of a male mate more carefully on this matter because it is a rare quality. If she wanted you to just clean the house like a Mexican housekeeper, she wouldn’t need to pick out her mate as well, if that is what she wanted. She could just hire you as a housekeeper, not as a husband. That is not rare, thus it’s not valuable, even though it is ‘high demand’. Trade is created by the Difference in what each side can offer. If each side can offer superior fighting abilities, there would be no need to trade for anything. You are offering the same thing to the other side, that the other side is offering to you. It’s like trading your heart, for the other guy’s heart, and calling it an “organ transplant success”. It ain’t no success. It’s unnecessary waste of time. If your heart is healthy and theirs is, you don’t gain anything by “trading”. If your heart is healthy and theirs is not, then value is accumulated via Differential.
     
    In the Old Days, family welfare and economic wealth was considered a top tier commodity from the male side. But males have to adapt to the market and to changing market conditions. When a woman can work and sustain herself, and with the help of the government sustain children to infinity, a male must provide Exclusive Monopoly goods more. Things only males are specialized for, not governments.
     
    Because individuals in school are not taught the equity of fair transaction or the wealth generation, but are instead taught the Left’s trickle down economy of zero sum and the con man’s art of getting money by exploiting guillible people, their living standards go down. Even if their society is wealthy beyond imagination, if they do not understand what “fair trade” is and how to do it, they cannot accumulate personal resources or make good use of the resources they do have. This is the destruction of human potential.

  6. says

    Kathy asked: “What on earth are their moms thinking?!?!”
     
    With all due respect to Moms everywhere, the real difference is made when DAD says to his daughter “You’ll not leave the house looking like that!” and then backs it up.
     
    When she stops (first) arguing, then (maybe, although not in my house) screaming, and finally crying, he can have a talk with her – a most important one.  Girls don’t know how boys/men think, and what it means to her as a person when she panders to the basest part of every man.  Dad’s can tell their daughters with an authority that even the best Mom does not possess.
     
    A big part of the cultural chaos around us results from Dads being absent or uncaring…..also a result of the gender feminists, and I say “D**n them, every one!”

  7. Kevin_B says

    I am a relatively young man who is, at the same time, is a child of his time, but also has some problems with how some stuff goes today. This particular topic is both interesting and difficult for me.
     
     
    I must admit that I don’t really mind women dressing pretty or even sexy.  I don’t tend to have much of a problem with women dressing sexy/revealing a bit/showing some skin. As I’m sure many, if not most, men do or at least have done, I look at the women I see in real life, notice things and not seldomly appreciate them too. Sometimes I look at ‘sexy’ pictures/cheesecake of women, i.e. bikini/lingerie pics or some sort of sexy clothes (this could for example be something like the girls in the clip in this music post:http://www.bookwormroom.com/2013/01/06/just-because-music-mikas-big-girls-you-are-beautiful/). All this to say, I appreciate women’s beauty and I don’t have much of of an issue with sexy. I’m sure I am not alone in this respect.
     
     
    However, while I like pretty and sexy, ‘slutty’ and ‘vulgar’ don’t appeal to me. Yes, I do believe one can distinguish between things that are sexy and things that are ‘slutty’ or ‘vulgar’. Take clothes, for example. Comments about slutty clothes or ‘women dressing like whores’ are not uncommon. However, one can ask what constitutes ‘slut clothes’ or ‘dressing like a whore’. Can we clearly determine this with objective criteria, or is it rather ‘in the eye of the beholder’ and a ‘I know it when I see it’ deal? I tend towards the latter view; for me at least what constitutes ‘slutty’ relates to different kinds of information, and ‘I know it when I see it’. I do not for example think that every woman who wears a short skirt or a bikini looks like a slut, but some do. Also, I don’t think that every sexy women, or even model et cetera, is per definition a sluttish women. I also think class matters in terms of clothes. For example, I think leopard spots are almost always tacky and reek of ‘slutty’ in many cases (leave leopard spots for the leopards, please). This to say that, first, I think there are differences between ‘sexy’ and ‘slutty’ or ‘vulgar’, the latter two in my opinion being closely related. Second, the perception of what is ‘sluttiness’ may differ greatly. 
     
     
    It is, of course, well possible that men liking the ‘sexy stuff’ I have mentioned is a result of their basest parts and urges. Men do possess these and they might influence the way they think about and act towards women. I don’t give much credence to the feminist cries about ‘objectification’ of women by men, but I do think it’s possible to excessively look at women in terms of attractiveness and sexuality and that is not a good thing. As much as I like the ‘sexy stuff’, I’m willing to admit that it can also be problematic and should be treated with some care.
     
     
    To get back to the topic of women’s clothing: I do not think that being a nice(r) girl requires some kind of ‘puritanism’ in dress or a move towards ‘burlap sacks’. Nice(r) girls might tend to moderate the sexy stuff to an extent and avoid stuff that clearly reeks of ‘slutty’. I do not think that walking around in shapeless sacks is required to be perceived as a nice girls. I also do not believe that every woman that, for example, wears a bikini is a ‘bad girl’.
     
     
    I would like to conclude this post with something I have at times noticed here in Europe, especially in our large cities, and it has to do with muslims and clothing. What I have come to see is the incremental way in which muslims bring their idiotic clothing traditions into our society, implement them in their own communities and (attempt to) normalizes them in the eyes of the native population. Muslim groups may start out dressing not that distinctly from the native population, and without a whole lot of headscarves and other crap. Then, something like loose scarves covering part of the head and hear might appear. From there, it evolves to greater coverage and more constricting scarves. We end up with the well-known view of the typical muslim headscarf, the hijab. At least for some time, many women will be wearing headscarves in a wide variety of colors and patterns, often with relatively modern Western clothing. After a while, the headscarves become plainer and darker, and black headscarves become more common. The dress changes towards long, dark and often black, sack-like garments. The next stap will be covering the face, and this evolution just has to end in the nikab or the burka. As muslim women become more and more hidden away, the disdain towards the native cultures and the view of native women as immoral, slutty women can only grow. I can therefore only conclude that muslims are slowly and incrementally working towards implementing their insane dress codes in our society, and that they are using their clothes as both a headcount and weapon against native societies and cultures. Clothes for them aren’t just clothes, they are part of the arsenal in conquering non-islamic cultures. I have noticed a small percentage of women seems to be changing their modes of dress, especially in our big cities, and I can only suppose that the muslim presence has something to do with it. The rise of islam is, I find, a very bad reason for western women (and men) to change their behavior and dress, and I find it scary also.

    • says

      Kevin_B:  I think you’re on to something.  Two somethings, in fact.  Pretty, flirty clothes sell a personality; slutty clothes sell sex.  Unless you’re looking for sex at the moment you see the clothes, there’s nothing charming about them.

      As for Muslim attire, that’s precisely what’s been happening in Marin.  About 10 years ago, I started seeing more head scarves.  Then I started see the full burqa, although the face was revealed.  Yesterday, one mile from my home, I saw a women in the full Saudi burqa, with only her eyes visible.

      I don’t know if you were reading my blog when I spoke about a conversation I had with a friend who was then with the FBI’s anti-terrorism unit.  He told me that Marin has a hidden, large, and radicalized Muslim community.  John Walker Lindh, the “American Taliban” from Marin County was neither an accident nor an anomaly.

      G.K. Chesterton said “It’s the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense.”  Affluent atheist Marin is rich hunting grounds for people looking for vulnerable, lost young people.  And if you can get them used to the clothes, that’s just one more arrow in your quiver.

      • says

        Book, one of my first reactions to the Japanese fashion culture for youths was that it was somewhat exploitative, in the Western sense.
         
        It took a significant amount of time to deprogram myself of Western feminist assumptions and corrupt social perceptions, to see the difference between sexy, cute, and slutty.

  8. Charles Martel says

    Book, I’ve been noticing the same thing, too, in Marin. The women who cover themselves this way always act modestly, even deferentially, which certainly serves to soften secularists’ initial dismay at the garb. But I can’t help but wonder how many Muslim men in Marin are encouraging this gradual covering up. Each concession by their wives or girlfriends certainly moves them closer to a state of hyper-masculine dominance over women, which Islam encourages and uses as one of its deep hooks into the savage part of the male psyche.
     
    I’m not quite sure how to point out to Marin liberals that not commenting on the Muslim disdain for women is a good thing. They refuse to comment for the usual liberal reasons–pseudo-tolerance (which they don’t extend to orthodox Christians), fear, because they know of the Muslim proclivity for violence, and fear because they do not want to leave the herd and declare that love for the Other should end when the Other openly espouses woman and queer hating.

    • says

      Just one death cult conquering the members of another death cult. Strength of belief determines in a cult who gets axed and who gets praised.
       
      In a comparison of the faith of the Left’s minions and tools vs Islamic Jihad… my bet is on the Jihdists.

Trackbacks

  1. Thursday morning links

    Pic above: A reader sent in that pic of a Patisserie window in Paris 12 year-old is DTF Svante Pääbo: the DNA hunter taking us back to our roots How smart policies, citizen activism, and visionary entrepreneurs transformed a huge swath of Manhatt

Leave a Reply