NYT Article: "What Sleeping With Married Men Taught Me About Infidelity"

[LionHound]

I submitted a guest article to the NYT, "What Wasting 50k in a Weekend on Hookers and Blow in Cancún Taught Me About Wasting 50k in a Weekend on Hookers and Blow in Cancún", but they haven't responded to me yet.

I'm sure they're just busy and will be getting back to me soon.

No, they'd never publish an article from a straight man about "hookers and blow." But you'd get published in a second if you wrote one called "I'm a straight guy but I enjoy giving blow jobs to my friends."

The mainstream media is all about upending "white male Christian norms." Once you realize that's their focus, it makes sense why they publish what they do.

This week The New Yorker is decrying the opening of a Chick-Fil-A in New York City. They called it "creepy" in their headline (cache link here). One sentence from the article reads: "And yet the brand's arrival here feels like an infiltration, in no small part because of its pervasive Christian traditionalism."

People on Twitter are asking if the same goes for Jews who want to open delis in Utah or Muslims who want to run falafel joints in Boston. Aren't they "infiltrating?"

As I said, the media is against anything having to do with traditionalism. It's easy to get published so long as you're trashing gender norms, marriage norms, Christian norms, etc.

I would also guess that writers play this up to get published. Confession: When I was writing, I did this a few times for mainstream outlets that paid big freelance bucks. I didn't lie; I just played up one element of my persona that fit their frame. I can't be the only one.

I love it when I run in to people who say they despise religion and then go on to talk about how hypocritical Christians are and how fake church goers are. Which, to be honest, yeah, sure they do have a small point. Once I really get them talking I'll slide the conversation over to other religions. Casually state how oppressive Sharia Law is to women and these types change gears really fast and start making apologies for it and blah blah blah.
And to be fair these people are probably going to have had more bad experiences with Christians than Muslims simply due to the numbers. To me, it shows a complete lack of self-awareness and intellectual laziness. And that hate is a powerful thing.

 

[eradicator]

The meals at chick fil a are not exactly cheap. They taste good and very filling but not the healthiest and probably cost ten bucks for a sandwich and signature waffle fries

Go once every couple of months if you must but I wouldn’t suggest going once a week for fast food

As for the people in their 50s using tinder to cheat on their spouses where the marriage goes stale? I would be worried about getting caught. I mean what the hell, the wife’s friends must use tinder, would probably show the husbands cheating tinder profile to the wife unless they had some sort of understanding.(like if you have affairs be discreet about them)

My point is, if you are a cheating husband, you should not be using tinder, that is bad game by definition. Use seekingarrangement.com and be discreet

I don’t necessarily have a problem with a guy who steps out on his wife, but tinder? What the fuck

 

[questor70]

the media is against anything having to do with traditionalism. It's easy to get published so long as you're trashing gender norms, marriage norms, Christian norms, etc.

It's a chicken and the egg debate. My opinion is that the cultural norm in big cities is already anti-traditional and media that services big cities (like the New York Times) reflects its target demographic because it makes the best business-sense. But even when commerce isn't the big driver, silos happen. For instance, I'd say there is an 80% or more chance that at any moment of the day, if you switch on NPR, it will be a story revolving around race/gender/sexuality/suffering 3rd world shitholes, either a sob story about discrimination, or a puff piece gushing with praise over diversity. There are more stories in this world beyond this, but NPR fixates on it the same way Fox News fixated on every conceivable error during the Obama administration. It does this because its target demographic skews female, gay, minority and liberal whites who are saddled with guilt over their privilege.

The reason why urban civilizations are more liberal is not because of media brainwashing. It's just sort of the natural order of things. More people clustered together, the more anonymized we become, the easier it is to play musican chairs with our personal lives as you may never cross paths with an ex again as people blend back into the crowd. The more rural things are, the more you grow up and live out your entire lives together. Everyone knows each other's business and the greater the risk of social ostracism (or worse) if you mistreat someone.

Adding in the Tinder and the rest just adds fuel to an already raging fire.

 

[Salvadore]

The meals at chick fil a are not exactly cheap. They taste good and very filling but not the healthiest and probably cost ten bucks for a sandwich and signature waffle fries

Go once every couple of months if you must but I wouldn’t suggest going once a week for fast food

As for the people in their 50s using tinder to cheat on their spouses where the marriage goes stale? I would be worried about getting caught. I mean what the hell, the wife’s friends must use tinder, would probably show the husbands cheating tinder profile to the wife unless they had some sort of understanding.(like if you have affairs be discreet about them)

My point is, if you are a cheating husband, you should not be using tinder, that is bad game by definition. Use seekingarrangement.com and be discreet

I don’t necessarily have a problem with a guy who steps out on his wife, but tinder? What the fuck

Just want to point out that if you got Tinder plus you can make it so only the people that you swipe right on gets to see you.

So, in theory, you could just swipe left on the profiles that pops up and shows the woman is facebook friend with your wife or someone you suspect might know who you are, and they'll never see that you're on there.

 

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Point being: cheating or breaking up with your wife when there are kids involved is not a choice between your happiness and that of your wife, it's choosing between your kids and you. We've had roughly forty years of men and women who chose themselves when presented with those two options, and when you look around you the result of that mass of choices is plain to see.

+1

otd:

Pretty fucking solid rationale of why it's about you and your children and not you and her.

Paracelsus put it well and this is exactly what I meant.

This idea that you can leave your sexless marriage and leave your children in the hands of a single mother and an assortment of "uncles" is no way to go about it.

Instead try to make it work somehow with wifey at least until the children are in their teens, rather cheat on the side. When the kids are older, then it does not impact them anywhere near as much.

The only cases where divorce is justified if either the man or the woman is highly toxic for the children. Most frivorces now at rates of 70-80% are initiated by women and not because the Alpha husband cheated too much. That is a ridiculous amount of divorces. Most often women are bored or they cheat behind the backs of their men and then leave them.

My views of marriage are not as "iron-clad-until-death-do-us-part", but there has to be a balance struck. Many women blow up marriages needlessly, men are the lesser evil at least in countries like the US and many Western states.

Also I might add - stable married families are increasingly becoming a privilege of the upper 20%. The other social strata are left in the ruins of the dysfunction, some tribes don't even marry and the majority of the kids are out of wedlock and worse - there is not even much of a bond between the father. You don't necessarily have to be married to create a strong nuclear family.

I am sure that quite a few cheating married men saved their marriages and later did not regret it as the last decades of marriage are seldom spent fucking 24/7. The kids and grandkids still have a home to go to for Christmas and not 2 other places or awkward single-mother shacks of emptiness. Even the cheating husband later may cherish his wife.

 

[Paracelsus]

The reason why urban civilizations are more liberal is not because of media brainwashing. It's just sort of the natural order of things. More people clustered together, the more anonymized we become, the easier it is to play musican chairs with our personal lives as you may never cross paths with an ex again as people blend back into the crowd. The more rural things are, the more you grow up and live out your entire lives together. Everyone knows each other's business and the greater the risk of social ostracism (or worse) if you mistreat someone.

Your intuition does have a certain biological basis: there is a Nature study that indicates that risk-aversion only develops as an evolutionary adaptation when the population of a community drops below a certain number, i.e. women only start marrying Mr Beta Provider when there are good odds their genes won't be passed on if they pass him off. As the population rises, the need for that adaptation vanishes and women are more inclined to take risky behaviours, including banging Mr Alpha Chad and waiting until their 30s to marry.

 

[Simeon_Strangelight]

The reason why urban civilizations are more liberal is not because of media brainwashing. It's just sort of the natural order of things. More people clustered together, the more anonymized we become, the easier it is to play musican chairs with our personal lives as you may never cross paths with an ex again as people blend back into the crowd. The more rural things are, the more you grow up and live out your entire lives together. Everyone knows each other's business and the greater the risk of social ostracism (or worse) if you mistreat someone.

Your intuition does have a certain biological basis: there is a Nature study that indicates that risk-aversion only develops as an evolutionary adaptation when the population of a community drops below a certain number, i.e. women only start marrying Mr Beta Provider when there are good odds their genes won't be passed on if they pass him off. As the population rises, the need for that adaptation vanishes and women are more inclined to take risky behaviours, including banging Mr Alpha Chad and waiting until their 30s to marry.

Yes and no - personally I think that the gender ratios are even more important below age 30.

Europe had a massive female oversupply from the 1800-1950s. In the US there was a shortage of 7 mio+ men in the 1950s. In Europe there had been many wars and empire building, also men had terribly dangerous professions. A society with far less men than women in the delicate under 25 age range results in women scrambling to marry fast, because no good men are going to be left for them. For example - England and London especially had a huge prostitute population since there was no welfare and the oversupply of women meant cheap pussy.
In the US in the 1950s and early 60s societies were more conservative than before because women were competing for the fewer men and behaving accordingly.

That is a far more important factor than pure population.

People in bigger cities tend to be - I would not say liberal - but they tend to soak up the current-day propaganda faster, also they tend to act more as if the opinions of their neighbors don't count, because they usually don't, while people in the countryside are shaped by the environment and a slutting around girl is going to be infamous, or a known communist is going to be looked upon negatively.

And yes - city folk are easily manipulated by the media and academia. If I owned the media and academia, then I could make the liberal progressives into fascist eugenicists within one generation and they would think this is all natural. In fact the countryside would resist this a bit more.

 

[Gray Beard]

It is not "redpill" to cheat around on your wife, no matter how rich/famous you are. Even if she's ok with it, it's still a dick thing to do (no pun intended).

You're either committed to her and raising your children together or you're not.

The word "cheat" suggests something sly and underhanded, and thus your message may make some sense ... BUT did you consider the possibility that the one who is ok with it is not "cheated" at all? Morals are a very personal thing and it is not my intention to convince you to change yours, but I strongly suspect that you are not talking based on experience here. I do have such experience, and I know for a fact that it is the cheating (aka hiding the truth) aspect of extramarital sex that is destructive, not the extramarital sex itself. Personally, I am committed to my wife and my family but I also indulge in extramarital sex. If my wife is OK with it, it's nobody else's business to pass judgements. Also, I don't see what it got to do with red, blue, or yellow pills (those blue and yellow pills may be helpful when you reach a certain age, but that's another subject).