Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
On E-Girls
I may be young, and I may spend too much time staring at screens, but I’m decidedly out of step with the bleeding edge of Internet culture. Only when Facebook became passé did I give in and make an account (which I seldom use). I’ve yet to touch Tik-Tok, and I doubt I ever will. All for the best, I think. But some friends just alerted me to a new-ish trend in the digital world: the so-called “e-girl” (or “e-thot,” in slightly less polite parlance).*
An e-girl is a young woman who sells feigned affection online. A customer gives her money, and she pretends to care about him by sending him pornography, seductive videos, personalized letters, or even presents. Yes, you read that correctly: A not-insignificant number of men are willing to pay random women on the Internet to give them attention. (Some even justify their pathology as a form of “providing.” “I’m doing my duty as a man!” they say. “I’m providing for her!”) This isn’t entirely new. I once read that the most popular offering among upscale brothels, for example, is not sex as such, but the whole romantic package — a nice dinner and a night on the town, followed by a consummation of the short relationship. The e-girl model makes a digital simulacrum of this available to every sad schlub with a laptop and an Internet connection. Can’t find a girlfriend? Just buy a fake one. Or try a dating simulator.
Actually, it’s even worse than that. Some guys seem to prefer e-girls to their flesh-and-blood equivalents. Floating around the web is an infamous Reddit post written by a 20-something woman whose live-in boyfriend threw hundreds of dollars at e-girls, even going so far as to buy his favorite one — but not her, his real girlfriend — a Christmas present. Despite being in a nominal relationship, he felt the need to purchase attention anyway. Blame feminism, I guess. (Sargon of Akkad certainly does.)
Just like that, the market has stolen yet more territory from the order of the sacred. The commodification of human relationships continues apace. First came pornography, which commodified sex. Next came online dating, which commodified the means by which humans form romantic relationships. Then came social media, which commodified the non-romantic parts of social life and turned us all into performing seals. Now, even ordinary affection is something to be bought and sold. What’s next? Sex dolls? AI “girlfriends”? My fashionable and tech-savvy brother tells me that “VTubing” is the hot new thing. The future is turning out to be Wall-E, minus the environmental degradation.
I’ve yet to see the conservative commentariat address this particular addition to the pile of modern social evils. They seem to think that pornography is the greatest single threat to marriage, family, and ordinary old-fashioned love; and it probably is, for now. But e-girls will have their moment in the sun. After all, this is the world the Soroses and Schwabs want: a global techno-utopian feudal order in which the docile peasantry consumes and then perishes, and does nothing else. A world without conflict, scarcity, or striving. A world where love and affection are exchanged, but never earned. Is this the kind of world you want to live in? If not, then you’d better invest in the tangible while you still can. . . .
. . . Oh, wait. My mistake. You can’t invest in the tangible because there’s a virus circulating, and it’s just too dangerous. Never mind. E-girls and sex dolls it is, then!
* Apparently, the term “e-girl” is also used to describe the style of dress such women tend to adopt. I’m sure an Internet-culture purist would object to my terminology in this piece, but I don’t care. What else am I supposed to call these people?
Published in Culture
Spoken like a good materialist. Henry! You already “believe” in things unseen. Have you seen an atom? Have you seen gravity — and not just its effects? As a concept, God is those perfections that can be imagined and which transcend grubby (fallen) human nature: Truth, Love, Mercy, Justice . . . Existence itself. Being rather than nothing. But, He’s more than can be imagined and is a Person (or a community of Persons — the Trinity). That’s where you’d need the grace of faith. Have you ever asked for it?
The story of Adam and Eve is the story of The Fall from grace. It is most definitely NOT the story of their “design” as manipulative and competitive rivals. And God made everything “good,” “very good.” God doesn’t make conflict between the sexes, but He gives us the freedom (free will) to behave that way toward one another.
And that’s where non-Christians really lose the thread when we Christians talk about restoring Christendom — the Faith’s totally non-coercive nature. No (self-aware) Christian is going to try to “make” you believe. Belief in Jesus Christ is by invitation and a free gift of grace. Restoration of Christendom could only take place by the voluntary and grace-filled conversion of open-minded, open-hearted people — one person at a time.
Atoms and gravity emerge from the process of science where everyone tests everything and accepts nothing on faith. The scientific process is based on observation. Both gravity (which no one is certain about) and atoms are theories that can be disproven. They have not been disproven so I believe in them. Belief in G-d is based on faith. Your comparison is not relevant.
Faith isn’t the credulity materialists paint it as, but it a choice. It is a choice to trust what God has revealed through His Church. It isn’t an assurance of certitude either. “Lord, help my unbelief” is a common prayer. Some of us pray it daily.
Henry, you seem to acknowledge the good that religion can do for individuals and society. In AA they have the saying “fake it until you make it.” That’s my recommendation for those loyal to the West and her roots in Christendom. That, and actually asking for the grace of faith. Ask and you shall receive.
I recommend that you read the book Submission. In it, a French Academic based his life on being the best critic of a French Novel that involves the Catholic faith. After a personal crisis, he goes to the statue of the Virgin Mary that the protagonist worshipped at at the climax of the book. He feels nothing. His entire life a quiet echo of the Christian past of his country and Civilization and yet he cannot believe.
Maybe most people can choose their faith but not all.
Some of this problem may come from the redefinition of sex as merely another form of entertainment, with the implicit assumption that it is a low-risk activity.
After all, many of the physical risks of sex such as pregnancy and disease have been mitigated through medicine. The spiritual risks are increasingly ignored as people disbelieve in — or simply become apathetic about — any comprehensible type of spirituality. Many of the social risks, which derived from physical and spiritual risks, have evaporated.
But people often forget that sex also carries serious emotional risks, apparently more for women than men. Thinking of sexuality as a kind of toy is, in its way, as dangerous as thinking of a loaded gun as a toy.
I think of sex like drugs or booze. It has a terribly powerful effect on our minds while being pleasant and it can destroy us.
Faith is tricky to define. It does seem to be a choice to trust. It is certainly not a blind or ignorant belief. But I think Henry makes a good point when he says that not everyone is capable of faith.
We Catholics are taught that faith is a gift rather than an achievement. What God wills for those to whom He does not give this gift is mysterious, but it is presumably something good.
Because He can will no other, being perfect Love.
I think I have no compunction in laying some of this blame on Puritan Protestants to begin this monstrous campaign against good and healthy sex.
Compared to what, though?
Women aren’t happy now. They are actually kind of miserable. The only people who eke out any satisfaction are the jealous monstrosities only desperate men are willing to touch but never willing to marry. It was the Jezebels who have ruined marriage for women men find attractive.
While attention on domestic violence and social stigmas on lots of foul behavior have become more equitable and helped push those to the edges of society, they have not been eradicated through feminism. All that has been gained is more labor for the employers (so, cheaper) and some concept of an independent woman. But independence isn’t really something women really want so much as feel we need to protect us from irresponsible boys.
Everything else just makes the boyhood worse and the degradation and harm from modern sexual relationships more onerous and burdensome. Women aren’t sexually liberated. They still feel pressured into first sexual interactions by overly amorous boys and they give in to sexual relationships because it is expectedly “normal”. That’s not freedom. It’s just conforming to a different moral code and expectation of behavior.
Yes, I know this to be true. I have some family in this category. The fruits of postmodernism/feminism.
This is the mistaken Protestant idea of total depravity. The Catholic Church teaches that we were made good (God doesn’t make junk), but have a fallen human nature and are in need of sanctification and redemption.
Have you never experienced being around a “holy” (not the word you would choose, I understand) person? Someone exceptionally virtuous? Not perfect, but wonderfully good?
And I’m sorry you’ve never been around a good and fruitful Christian marriage, but I was raised in one and have many in my Catholic circle. Again, not perfect, but definitely not in the depraved, contentious category.
These people are evidence you can see with your own eyes and don’t need “faith” to believe in, however rare they may be.
Well, I can assure you that I’m not interested in feminists — i.e., the majority of women in 2020.
The political and cultural polarization of the sexes is a brewing disaster. I can’t tell you how many right-leaning Millennial and Generation Z guys (including me) have developed a kind of low-grade misogyny over the last few years. It’s hard to look at the way many women of our generation present themselves on social media (and on, say, dating websites) and not feel a pang of disgust. The crassness, the lack of self-respect, the virtue-signaling, the bandwagoning — all universal, and all very unattractive.
There are exceptions to the rule, and thank goodness for that! I’m looking for one of those exceptions. I haven’t yet found her.
Modern women are miserable and the most bitter and miserable are feminists.
I was given the insight into the Genesis story of The Fall and punishment many years ago (and I’m incredibly humble, too). The punishment for men and women differs, and speaks to the nature of each sex. Women will desire their husbands despite the pains of childbirth (and child-rearing) and men will labor (in the dirt) to bring forth provision for his family. These answer the question, “what do women (and men) really want from men (and women)?”
Women want to be protected and provided for in their vulnerable roles as wife and mother. To be cherished for their unique vulnerability. If you could get a feminist to honestly assess this, I think she’d admit it’s true. Sure education and career can be rewarding, but ultimate satisfaction would be receiving the love of a good man.
And men want to be honored in their work by their wives, children, and colleagues. It’s the respect, appreciation, and love of a good woman that ultimately satisfies a good man.
My mother was as wholly “Christian” as anyone I ever met. Maybe even “holy.”
This fits into my belief that Uber/Lyft/etc never really wanted to have people drivers that get paid, they were just passing time until they could have fleets of self-driving cars and keep all the money for themselves. Real females may be fulfilling the same role now, in this area, temporarily.
Yes. He wants the love of a good woman — that is, the love of a woman he, too, can respect.
The current brand of feminism creates women who are not only incapable of respecting, but also women who are incapable of being respected.
I didn’t miss any of the points you make, my larger point is that I don’t think you can get back to how children and parenthood – perhaps especially motherhood – were (at least theoretically) valued in the past, “simply” by a large-scale return to religion. Even if the value-ing is sincere, there are a large number of practical matters that didn’t exist in the past, pushing in the opposite direction.
{edited to clarify, as shown in bold}
We are seeing a large-scale turn to religion. It’s just not the Christian religion.
For decades, conservative Christians have been talking about the need for a “new Great Awakening.” Well, we got a great awokening instead.
Comedian Bill Burr may have a point with things like “what makes women happy? Nothing!” It’s entirely possible that women are (largely, for the most part, whatever option you prefer) incapable of “being happy.” It may be that “happiness” is some kind of never-ending process or journey, and they have no idea of their own of what path to take. Or at least, if they expect that such-and-such a decision or action will “make me happy” and it never does, while they’re being told by TV ads or what-not that they’re SUPPOSED TO BE happy, they get mad and lash out at whoever is nearby and perhaps blame-able: often/usually a man. Men know they (usually) aren’t responsible for a woman’s unhappiness, and nothing they try seems to help, so at some point they might just give up. In the past, family and church and tradition etc could tell women “this is what leads to a fulfilling life” and even if they never actually felt “happy” about it, at least it was a goal. Now they have nothing, except the anger/bitterness/whatever about “not being happy.”
Just a starting thought.
It may have many of the characteristics of a religion, but it’s not really a “great awakening” since the people in it become no less, and often much more, unhappy as a result.
Perhaps a failure of expectation in what happiness is. The constant pursuit of the endorphin high of “happiness” creates a kind of manic pursuit only exacerbated by the ebb and flow of hormones that only feed the sensation of addiction withdrawal.
Perhaps the challenge for women is to accept that the constancy of contentment is where true and stable happiness comes from and that may temper, though never tame, their constant reach for the greener grass elsewhere.
Contentment is not the same feeling of euphoric happiness, but it is far more stable. And like training our tongues to favor the taste of whole foods over cakes and sweets, we should train ourselves to enjoy the feeling of contentment as the steady diet of our lives.
Or perhaps women don’t sustain the levels as much as men do, in actual physiological terms, which might also be associated with the ability to forget about what giving birth involved, just in time for the next one. :-)
Anyway, in my presentation form, “happiness” and “contentment” are equivalent.
SWM seeks SWF for long-term relationship. Non-smoker. Weildy.
This is why we need genetic engineering. Happiness is at least half genetic.
But if you’re going to use genetic engineering, why not just make it so that people are ALWAYS “happy,” no matter what the situation really is?
Why a white girl?
Say what you will, it’s more appealing than stale affirmations taped to the bathroom mirror.
Do you have a problem with people’s preferences? Cultural experiences and values are very different between the nations.