Obedience and Security

I’m big on giant meta-principles, where I can find them.  You have to be careful making up your own theological physics, but if it’s there, it’s there.

This is one I’m pretty convinced is a real thing.  Without further ado:

The price the obedient demand for their obedience is benefit; those who seek the submission of others must provide evidence of the ability to give it, and the willingness to give it, i.e. power and love.

A few examples to flesh this out:

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your husbands…husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.”

“Trust in corporations was traditionally constructed in this way: The individual was loyal. The institution protected and cared for the individual. Employees professed to have no priorities outside their specific institution. And the corporation promised long-term opportunities and enhanced rewards for those who stayed.” ~

The bargain—obedience for security—is not always possible.  Both parties must believe that the other party will deliver.  One way to increase the likelihood of this is to make the bargain enforceable.  That’s why we have contracts—to set the other party’s mind at rest by giving up freedom.  Marriage is a bargain that was historically enforced by the community.

Of course, a contract is only as good as its enforcer, and as the importance of the community has declined, so has the viability of marriage.   A community that shames sluts increases a husband’s  trust in his wife, and a community that shames philanderers increases a wife’s trust in her husband.  With community enforcement, marriage doesn’t require Joe and Jane Righteous — Joe and Jane SlightlyVain will do.  Now that we are all special snowflakes free of societal obligation, you do in fact need Joe or Jane Righteous.

But back to the main point: obedience and security.  It’s everywhere.  My personal path to Christ involved a lot of rebellion, but concluded when I realized that I couldn’t beat God, and He was offering pretty good surrender terms, so I might as well take them.  Peace through superior firepower, if you will.  And the trade is this: I do what He says, and He takes care of me.  The New Testament details both ultimate power—power over death—and ultimate love—through the Atonement in the garden and on the cross.

Now, since I’m not really that great a person, let me point out why both of those are required:

If God lacked ultimate power, then, although I’d be sure He was a really nice Guy, He wouldn’t have that much to offer me.  Since I’m kind of a selfish jerk when it comes down to it, I’d pay Him no mind.

If God didn’t love me, then, power or no power, I’d constantly fear that any of His edicts were issued for the sadistic pleasure of watching me try to fulfill them, rather than my own well-being.  Ain’t nobody got time for that.

We can be our own security providers, of course.  This is called “independence,” and it’s an option among many.  Anyone who tells you what to do (including yourself) is in a bidding war of power and love against everyone else telling you what to do.  As such, a fantastic way to get someone to do what you want them to do is to scare them.  This undermines their self-confidence, making your offer look better in comparison.  This is why guys take girls to horror movies and buy them diamond rings, and why popular response to NSA abuses has been lukewarm at best.  We’ve all been Dread Gamed.



In my last post, Should You Be Afraid of Men?, I derived* fairly sensible behaviour for women as regarding men:

 Avoid strange men in alleyways.  If there are men you trust there, stay close to them.

This can be generalized:

In dangerous situations, be more tribal.

And its corollary:

In safe situations, it’s OK to be less tribal.

It’s important to think about safe situations as well as dangerous ones.  True, you should avoid strange men in alleyways.  But we don’t live in alleyways.  In fact, in the Western World, we live in one of the least alleyway-like places on the planet.

It was only after the U.S. came out of WWII, and its memory was gone from the younger generation, that most of the population felt secure enough for black civil rights and feminism to happen.

Risk Compensation, and Sometimes I write good stuff

Recently there was a minor furor on the /r/theredpill subreddit regarding domestic discipline.  I voiced my own thoughts (“A good thing”), and a few days ago got a short private message:

Should men be able to spank their girlfriends when they misbehave?

What are your thoughts on this?

Ever one to bloviate, but worried about quote-mining, I responded:

If by “should,” you mean, “what does dropit_sphere (ED: that’s me on reddit) think is legal?” then, no, of course not. That would probably be classified as assault.

However, if you mean, “what does dropit_sphere think is moral?” then you’re on different ground altogether.

The short answer: I think men should be allowed to spank their wives.

The long answer: I also think people should be more careful about whom they marry. We talk a lot in the sphere about how men should be careful, but divorce rape is a new development. Historically it is women, risking both their eggs and their person, who have needed to be cautious.

But in the modern age, the free out of no-fault divorce (combined with alimony, custody, and child support) makes risky guys much more appealing. The difference between falling out of a plane and skydiving is the parachute.

I suspect more than one feminist dude has been the recipient of a “relief fuck” after some girl stumbles on /r/theredpill and gets horrified. His lack of threat likely becomes much more inviting when compared to the hotbed of misogyny (real or imagined) she has just discovered.


The reason I changed the wording to “wives” above, is because I don’t believe in “relationships.” They exist only to add a veneer of respectability to fornication.

Also, for this particular issue, men will act more responsibly with a wife than a girlfriend. Which do you take better care of: your car, or a rental?

The “skydiving” link above leads to the wikipedia article about the idea of “Risk Compensation,” which is the idea that there is a certain baseline of risk that people are willing to accept.  Make their environment safer, and choices that were formerly too dangerous now become tenable.  Drivers drive faster with seatbelts on, my “Tribal Tenets” above are oriented at risk reduction in dangerous situations and greater risk-taking in safe situations—it applies to a lot.

What I find especially interesting that I think it applies to: the better women are protected from domestic violence, the more they go after guys who are liable to commit domestic violence.  What would have been a slow-motion, bruise-by-bruise death sentence a hundred years ago, would be a thrilling adventure brought to a mundane end involving a divorce court, a battered women’s shelter, and a couple of fatherless kids drawing welfare. All bad outcomes, but certainly better than death.  And think of the tingles!

In other words:  “Nice Guy Game” likely actually worked when the jerks had real teeth.

If you wanted to get really snarky, put it this way: society picks up the bill for bad mate choice in the form of welfare, police, one billion person-hours of sensitivity training (trigger warnings aren’t needed if there’s nothing to trigger), but has no ability to influence that mate choice (“How dare you tell me whom to date!  We’re IN LOVE, Dad!”).

*the hubris of anonymous internet bloggers knows no bounds.

Should you be afraid of men?

On reddit recently*, the question was posed to a bunch of men: “What advice would you give a young woman?”  Commenter CalvinDeHaze writes:

Don’t be afraid of men. We’re not the sex-driven criminal maniacs looking to rape you in the bushes or molest your children. 99% of us are good people.

This is a more complex issue than it appears.

On one hand, the manosphere resents insulting advice like, “If you see a woman in front of you at night, cross the street to reassure her that you aren’t going to rape her.”  I get it, but…are you saying I’m a rapist?  And why should have to cross the street?

But on the other hand, it is nothing like sympathetic when a woman gets sloppy drunk and wakes up in a bed with someone she doesn’t remember.  “What did you think was going to happen?” is the refrain.

So which is it?  Are we slavering beasts unable or unwilling to control our urges, or are we just misunderstood good guys?

The answer is both.  

Men tend to vary more than women in…just about everything.  Intelligence, stature, income, strength, the list goes on.  We’re nature’s spins on the roulette wheel, while women are treasury bonds.  (For why, read Prof. Roy Baumeister’s excellent talk.)

So, yeah.  Most men are harmless.  But some—most likely few, but some—are not:they are vicious, evil men.

So, should men be treated as “slightly more threatening than harmless?”  If 99% are good and 1% bad, should a strange man be treated as 99% good and 1% bad?

Probably not.

Here’s why:  whom would you rather meet in a dark alley, one after the other: 99 harmless passerby guys and one rapist, or 0 men at all?

So, if we’re just dealing with strange men in alleyways, the choice seems clear:  avoid men in alleyways.  The vast majority of those men may be harmless, but they don’t make up for the horror that a small minority could inflict.

But let’s change the situation a bit.  You have one traveling companion with you in the alley.  Would you prefer to have your brother with you, or your sister?

Your sister is, I’m sure, a pleasant travelling companion, but in this specific situation…safer to have your brother with you.So our rule of “avoid men in alleyways” has to be amended: avoid strange men in alleyways.  If there are men you trust there, stay close to them.

Distinctions (*ahem* discriminations) must be made.  You cannot afford to treat “men” as a monolithic entity.  There are “your” men—ones you can trust—and then there are “other” men—ones who may be fantastic human beings, but you don’t know from Adam.  You should be especially nice to the former, as you rely on them, and regard the latter with more caution than the vast majority of them deserve.



*the most hilarious thing in the world to me: when mainstream news outlets quote random people on reddit.  Is the internet normal yet?

Confluence of the Stars

I found Art of Manliness a long time ago, but it seemed a little too superficial too me.  While hats and safety razors are cool, it felt like “cargo cult” masculinity—reaching after the substance by imitating the form.  Bret later redeemed himself in my mind with his excellent series on manly honor, but by that time I’d moved on to fringier stuff.

One of the things I found that was “fringier” was Jack Donovan’s writing.  Jack has been something of a lone voice in the wilderness just by virtue of how radical his rhetoric is, but he was a big influence on my taking the pill.  Jack is also a big advocate of forming gangs, and I still hold the opinion that this aspect is underaddressed in the greater sphere(/r/theredpill in particular is still mostly interested in whatever will get them laid).

So it was a happy occurrence for me when the two teamed up for a podcast.

EDIT:  having just finished listening, you can probably skip it if you’re familiar with Jack’s writing, as it seems aimed at doing a survey of The Way of Men for Bret’s readers.  If you’re unfamiliar with either one of them, though, I’d highly recommend Bret’s series on honor (linked above), or basically anything Jack has written (at jack-donovan.com).