My blog-roll page has been updated to be substantially larger and to match the endorsed flairs on the /r/darkenlightenment subreddit

[Special thanks to Nick B Steves and /u/nemester for helping me with updating the list. The lists of sites included under each of the following flairs can be seen here on my blogroll page, which is also on the sidebar. I have made sure that my blogroll matches the lists used by this sub for flair rules.]

The Endorsed DE Site flair (DE is short for Dark Enlightenment) has been used for awhile in /r/darkenlightenment to help distinguish between articles of interest from outsiders and articles prepared by those acknowledged by community consensus as being part of or closely related to the Dark Enlightenment. Automoderator would add the flair automatically to a list of specific domains. The main purpose of the flair was to use it rather than having to outright remove articles not specifically endorsed or even opposed by the community. This way, if someone posts a highly progressive article worth analyzing, or some crazed rant calling for extreme measures it would be quite clear the content was not Dark Enlightenment endorsed. Since that distinction is clear, the mods are less obliged to remove it. This flair was used very generally before this update and included writers both in the core group and those with only one narrow interest of overlap. For example, a prominent writer on HBD is clearly of interest even if they never tackle any other issues such as democracy or tradition, or even if they disagreed with the dark enlightenment’s view on democracy and tradition. Nemester created it fairly quickly by inferring the most prominent sites based on what seemed to be most discussed. Heroes of the Dark Enlightenment especially helped in providing the initial list. I have been talking with Nemester privately about improving the flair rules and adding substantially more sites to the list based on my discussions with the Neoreactionary community. The Endorsed DE Site flair will still be used, but will be reserved for more peripheral writers. Typically, that means that they have one narrow interest of overlap with the darkenlightenment but are in disagreement or have no comment about other parts. For example, Heartiste talks about masculinity and white nationalism, but also writes on hook-up culture which is understood if not endorsed. HBDchick only discusses HBD. Etc.

The NRx endorsed site flair (NRx is short for Neoreaction) has been added and will automatically be applied to writers considered part of the core group. Clearly all these people do not agree on every single point, however the consensus among them is much tighter than the more generalized circle of the Dark Enlightenment and they are more likely to address each of the various points of interest at one point or another in their writing.

The Fellow Travelers flair is used for sites which core neoreaction likes to read for news or posts, but are either not neoreaction or dark enlightenment, or who would not like the label applied to themselves. It is more or less a catch all flair for sites that did not seem appropriate for the previous two flairs. Degree of overlap with the dark enlightenment is variable.

The main consequence of this change is that the list of auto-flaired domains has been substantially increased and it gives you a better idea of the stratification of writers in the community. Chances are you have not seen many of the bloggers included in this list and I encourage you to look through the list and check out some of their articles.

Share Button

How does a man’s sexual history affect his likelihood of divorce?

Nick B. Steve recently pointed out an oversight on my part when I originally wrote “Who is the true enemy of neoreaction“. Basically, I misinterpreted some bolded text in an excerpt from a study provided by the social pathologist. You can download the whole study here. Here is the text reproduced below:

The results presented in this article replicate findings from previous research: Women who cohabit prior to marriage or who have premarital sex have an increased likelihood of marital disruption. Considering the joint effects of premarital cohabitation and premarital sex, as well as histories of premarital relationships, extends previous research. The most salient finding from this analysis is that women whose intimate premarital relationships are limited to their husbands—either premarital sex alone or premarital cohabitation—do not experience an increased risk of divorce. It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital coresidental unions. These findings are consistent with the notion that premarital sex and cohabitation have become part of the normal courtship pattern in the United States. They do not indicate selectivity on characteristics linked to the risk of divorce and do not provide couples with experiences that lessen the stability of marriage.

Here is my claim from my original post:

Empirically, a man’s risk of divorce is not increased by his sexual history so past sexual restraint for men who might join is more optional, assuming he is willing to reform himself. 

I tripped up on that It is only women line and thought that was meant to exclude men from this risk, when it only meant to exclude women who had sex with their husbands and only their husbands before being officially married. We all make mistakes. My apologies. In any event, after seeing my mistake I was quite curious to see what previous research has explicitly found about male sexual promiscuity and its effects on marriage:

After re-reviewing the study, I can see that you are correct and that it doesn’t address what effect premarital partners among men has on divorce risk for men. I attempted to find a study that addresses this explicitly, but so far I have not found anything. All the relevant studies seem to focus exclusively on what happens to women with multiple partners. This is rather surprising to me. I don’t know why these researchers would seemingly avoid addressing this obvious question. I have a few guesses as to why this might not be addressed. Maybe these researchers found no correlation between sexual partners and men’s divorce risk. If so, this is an “uninteresting” negative finding and so they just ignore it because it won’t result in a publication. Alternatively, the same result might highlight a biologically justifiable double standard for men and women, which would be highly controversial and as a result they would never be able to publish the finding. Another possibility is that they simply couldn’t find enough men who only have had sex with their wives, and thus couldn’t constitute a large enough control group. Without the control group, you have no basis of comparison and any data you collect is useless.

Something similar happened when they tried to find a control group of men who hadn’t viewed porn. Apparently non porn watching men are every bit as fictional as unicorns. Virginal husbands might be similarly rare.  Submitted as indirect evidence, women’s own preferences would seem to undermine the possibility of large numbers chaste husbands.

So what I am left with is that my statement is neither supported or refuted by anything I could find, but with some indirect evidence in favor. The claim is a reasonable guess based an an understanding of evolutionary psychology. If it ever became possible to empirically verify this hypothesis, I would suspect it to be true. Thanks for pointing this out though, and if you can find any study that addresses the question directly, please send it to me.

So after spending an hour or two trying to find something that directly addressed the question I came back empty handed. Though my original claim is certainly weakened by this, it is by no means refuted. If someone can find a study on this please send me the title. Also, keep in mind that cheating on a wife is not the same as divorcing her and failing as a provider.

In any event, this is a relatively minor quibble. From part two of my original post, I expanded a bit on this and conceded that the direct influence of sexual history on a man’s divorce risk isn’t the only thing to consider:

As a matter of principle and in the interest of harmony it is a good idea to strongly discourage male infidelity, but the relative gravity of the transgression is not as large as female infidelity. This is why I stated in my post that for men, sexual history is more optional. Leniency here wouldn’t destroy the community in my opinion. Though this is technically true, I certainly understand principled rejection of PUAs from the hypothetical community. More likely than facing PUAs off, though, I suspect you will have to decide to accept or reject men with a few to moderate level of previous partners (not true PUAs), so it wouldn’t be as clear cut.

To add to this, the point of the post was how a community might be initially created and I would be surprised if some leniency wouldn’t be necessary in such a circumstance. This doesn’t say anything about how young men should be raised within the community. Certainly they should be discouraged just as strongly as young women. It takes two to tango and even if it doesn’t adversely affect the young man, it would affect whichever girl he was with. In short, there are plenty of reasons to discourage male promiscuity before marriage. Increasing his divorce risk just probably isn’t one of them.

Share Button