Posted on September 17, 2009 by Bonald
In my last post, I said that a wife should be willing to sleep with her husband once a month, and that this would fulfill the marriage debt. Since I know that some of you plan your private lives around my advice, I’ve decided I owe it to you to do more than just pull a number out of the air. Here’s why once a month is about right.
Suppose we want an average woman to have 3 children. Ask.com tells me that the median marriage age for American women is around 25, and the probability of becoming pregnant from one sex act is around 5%. Let’s say the woman stops having children at around 40. That’s 15 child-bearing years; however, we must excuse the woman for the roughly two years covering her pregnancy and the child’s infancy, so we’re really left with 9 years to get pregnant three times, i.e. 3 years to get pregnant once. Let’s say the couple has sex at time intervals dt, so that in 3 years, they have sex n=3/dt times. The probability of not being pregnant in 3 years is (1-p)^n, where p=0.05. Say we want to make this probability to be something moderately low, say 20%. Then a trivial calculation gives
dt = 3 log(1-p)/log(0.2) = 0.096 = about 10 times per year
So my “once a month” rule of thumb is about right.
Filed under: Forgotten Virtues, Gender roles, Sex | 3 Comments »
Posted on September 16, 2009 by Bonald
There has been a lot of publicity lately over Afghanistan’s new law which absolves a husband of his duty to feed his wive if she is derelict in her duty to have sex with her husband. The original law said that a wife should accomodate her husband every four days. There is a certain logic to the law: husbands are obliged to support their wives; wives are obliged to put out for their husbands. Why should party A carry out his end if party B isn’t carrying out hers? The reason, of course, is the logic of marriage itself. Marriage is not a contract between self-seeking individuals. It’s a reciprocal act of total self-donation. Therefore, the duty of each party to the other is unconditional; it is independent of the behavior of the other party. Consider the opposite case: suppose the husband lost his job, and the family had to live for a time off of charity or the public dole. Would anyone say that the wife would be right in depriving her husband of his conjugal rights? Wouldn’t this be a heartless way to treat a man already down on his luck?
Filed under: Forgotten Virtues, Gender roles, Sex | 1 Comment »
Posted on September 8, 2009 by Bonald
Oh, how I miss the days when you would buy something from a store and know that your money was going to some filthy rich capitalist who will use it to buy rich-guys stuff like mansions and jewelry! Not any more, no sir. Now they think they have to use their money to make the world a better place. This always ends up meaning financial support for communism or sexual immorality. It used to be I could put gas in my car anywhere, knowing that my money was going to venal but God-fearing Arabs. Now I have to look out to avoid the “Citgo” signs if I want to avoid supporting communist tyranny. Bill Gates spent the first part of his career in the honorable task of getting filthy rich. Then he decided to fight AIDS, which means contraception and “sex ed”, so Microsoft is now basically in the child corruption business. All of this is a buildup to my decision to join the Pepsi boycott. PepsiCo has decided to spend its profits on the aggressive promotion of sodomy, and this is obviously not something I should be supporting with my business. It’s a damn shame, too. I really liked my daily Diet Pepsi. If only they’d spent their profits on fancy boats and cars.
Filed under: How we got to this point | 2 Comments »
Posted on September 5, 2009 by Bonald
Ah, the wonderful things you can find on the internet just by following links. I started by reading this article on The Brussels Journal, an excellent article in itself on how leftist bias in the Anglo-American world drove–and continues to drive–hostility towards the German resistance to Hitler (so much so that a memo from the British Foreign Office actually claimed that it was better that Hitler prevailed). Following one of the links on this page, I eventually got to this letter from Eric Voegelin to Leo Strauss concerning Karl Popper’s influential but utterly meritless The Open Society and its Enemies. I was happy to find that Voegelin, one of my intellectual heroes, had the same opinion of Popper’s work that I have. An excerpt:
Dear Mr. Strauss, The opportunity to speak a few deeply felt words about Karl Popper to a kindred soul is too golden to endure a long delay. This Popper has been for years, not exactly a stone against which one stumbles, but a troublesome pebble that I must continually nudge from the path, in that he is constantly pushed upon me by people who insist that his work on the “open society and its enemies” is one of the social science masterpieces of our times. This insistence persuaded me to read the work even though I would otherwise not have touched it. You are quite right to say that it is a vocational duty to make ourselves familiar with the ideas of such a work when they lie in our field; I would hold out against this duty the other vocational duty, not to write and to publish such a work. In that Popper violated this elementary vocational duty and stole several hours of my lifetime, which I devoted in fulfilling my vocational duty, I feel completely justified in saying without reservation that this book is impudent, dilettantish crap. Every single sentence is a scandal, but it is still possible to lift out a few main annoyances.
Those who have become familiar with Voegelin’s academic prose will appreciate how deliciously out of character it seems for him to describe something as simply “crap”.
Filed under: Modern fallacies | Leave a comment »