Men's Shameful Lust

[MMX2010]

But then you're defining "philosophy" as being whatever women want it to be. That is, philosophy is the very opposite of philosophy.

 

You suggested that women on these forums are using philosophy to get what they want, in the same manner that unphilosophical women do: in an exploitative fashion.

 

There's no null hypothesis here. They are exploitative, even when they aren't exploitative.

 

The null hypothesis is as simple as it is scary: A woman who isn't exploitative has conducted her entire life from birth by focusing on both the needs of children and on how her current conduct reflects on herself as Future Mother.  Whenever she experienced conflict, she resolved it by asking, "How does the particular action I'm contemplating reflect upon myself as a Future Mother?" 

 

The scary thing is not that the null hypothesis is unfair; it's that it's extraordinarily fair and hardly any woman lives up to it. 

 

Since hardly any woman lives up to it, then the "for the children" standards of male conduct - particularly related to the male restraint of sexual pursuits - is really "for the woman". 

 

 

 

So are you saying that biology so concretely binds women that they aren't capable of higher philosophical thought? I can't help but feel like your points are putting all women in a box- your absolutism is very strong.

 

 

Not at all.  After all, biology has given men so many powerful impulses that they, too, are prone to avoiding philosophical thought.  But culture steps in and tries to get men to be philosophical, "Men, think of how your actions negatively impact others, particularly the children!" 

 

I'm assuming you live in America, and if you do, you accept that you cannot go five minutes without someone (or some organization) trying to get you to be philosophical.  Do women face the same level of constant philosophical scrutiny?  Are women accused of "hating" an entire gender if they betray anti-philosophical positions?  What philosophical ramifications are woman encouraged to explore? (Answer: How do the enormous weakness and immorality of men justify the selfish actions that you're too scared to perform?  If you dwell on this long enough, you'll realize how foolish it is to NOT give into your selfish wants, since it's all men's fault anyways.) 

 

In simple equational terms: (1) Men + American Culture = Some Chance of Being Philosophical and Virtuous.  (2) Women + American Culture = Almost Zero Chance of Being Philosophical and Virtuous.  So I am not arguing biological determinism; I'm arguing American cultural determinism.

 

 

 

I'm not saying you're wrong but can you say with total certainty as Mr. Beal says- that women are by nature exploitive?

 

 

I can say, with total certainty, that women are by nature duplicitous.  Their menstrual cycle makes them "One Type of Woman" in the three-day window during ovulation, and makes them "The Completely Opposite Type of Woman" in the other twenty-five days during non-ovulation.  Their duplicity moves further into three other culturally supported duplicities: (1) That the Woman She Is during the twenty-five days is "the real her", while the Woman She Is during the three days is "not really her".  (2) That every woman, by merely existing, will eventually find a way to conquer those three-day-long impulses.  The duplicity, which should be obvious, is that no woman believes that men, by merely existing, will eventually conquer his anti-philosophical, destructive impulses.  With men, it requires hard work, introspection, and most importantly, constant monitoring by women and society, followed by constantly "proving yourself" under the scrutiny of women's and society's gaze.  (3) That every man who refuses to accept Items 1 and 2 "hates women" and "needs therapy"; if he refuses therapy, he deserves to have his every opinion rejected. 

 

 

 

 

Are you saying a woman is incapable of having passionate, emotionally intense, and eager-to-please sex when she is secure?

 

 

I'm saying that the sex a woman provides when she knows you might leave is never as passionate and emotionally intense as the sex she provides when she knows you'll never leave.  Transactional Sex is transactional; it's in response for doing something she appreciated.  Validational Sex is validational; it's in response for being who you are. 

 

(If women didn't constantly ask, "Do you love me because of what I provide you, or do you love me because of who I really am?" and if women didn't constantly get into bad moods whenever they suspected, "You only love me because of what I provide!", then I'd have no objections to their actions.  But their constant usage of this language indicates that they know the difference and accept that it's important.  So if they know the difference and accept that it's important, why does every man have to sacrifice his quest to be on the happier side of this all-important distinction?) 

 

Note: It's THEIR JOB, as advancers-of-the-argument, to provide evidence.  It's not OUR JOB, as receivers-of-the-argument, to prove the assertion wrong. 

[Kevin Beal]

The scary thing is not that the null hypothesis is unfair; it's that it's extraordinarily fair and hardly any woman lives up to it. 

 

Since hardly any woman lives up to it, then the "for the children" standards of male conduct - particularly related to the male restraint of sexual pursuits - is really "for the woman". 

That's not what a null hypothesis is.

 

How do we determine logically whether or not a given woman is not exploitative?

 

If a lack of principle is a determining factor in whether or not a woman is exploitative, and the opposite: living a principled life, is also a determining factor in exactly the same respect, then neither can logically be used as justification of the conclusion. If you throw out living a philosophical life as the exception, then you cannot use any lack of philosophy as justification for your conclusions. That means, you cannot say that exploitation has anything to do with a lack of virtue or a lack of rationality. That is, you have to say that exploitation is not exploitation, but something else. It's the very definition of a contradiction.

 

This is why, if there are no null hypotheses, then the theory is worse than useless.

 

If it's true that you are offering a false methodology to protect the hearts of men, then you are not only not helping men protect their hearts, but getting in the way of them protecting their hearts.

 

As a note to anyone, be very wary of people who put forward radically new theories, but have no substantive understanding of philosophy. What they do is start from the conclusion and then find things to confirm that bias. Be especially wary if the the virtues they propose serve potentially to avoid necessary but difficult goals. Not that this is necessarily what's going on here. I just add that note because it's relevant to the discussion.

[MMX2010]

That's not what a null hypothesis is.

 

 

So.....we're discussing whether the null hypothesis I proposed fits under the definition of a Null Hypothesis rather than whether it's a correct and useful methodology for separating exploitative women from non-exploitative ones? 

 

How do we determine logically whether or not a given woman is not exploitative?

 

 

I would alter that question to, "How can we determine logically whether or not a given woman, who, by nature, both has a concealed ovulatory system and lives in a society that preaches that men are evil, with the obvious remedy being to allow all women to shamelessly pursue their selfish desires, is not exploitative?" 

[Kevin Beal]

So.....we're discussing whether the null hypothesis I proposed fits under the definition of a Null Hypothesis rather than whether it's a correct and useful methodology for separating exploitative women from non-exploitative ones? 

If there is no null hypothesis, it is not a methodology. That's the whole point.

 

I would alter that question to, "How can we determine logically whether or not a given woman, who, by nature, both has a concealed ovulatory system and lives in a society that preaches that men are evil, with the obvious remedy being to allow all women to shamelessly pursue their selfish desires, is not exploitative?" 

Ok, I'm fine with an answer to either one, actually. You can phrase it however you want. Do you have an answer? If not, then I think I've proven my case.

[Matt D]

First let me say I think this conversation is extremely important because we cannot achieve a philosophical world without women. Not because men are controlled by women, but because children are influenced so heavily by women as primary caregivers. Men have been trying for a long time to bring philosophy to the world and Stef/FDR has I think been so successful because it bridges the crater that we are told exists between the genders.

 

MGTOW / red pill is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you assume that women will never change, then you're right - women will never change. But if men start holding women and mothers to a standard and criticize them compassionately and empathetically, and resist the urge to have sex with those who don't meet that standard, then women as a whole I believe will come to realize how much they need strong, virtuous men in their lives.

 

"The man in the relationship will find it impossible to fully please his wife sexually, simply and solely because he's established a committed relationship with her."  To commit to a woman is to make her feel secure.  To make her feel secure is to voluntarily enter into the Stable Provider role.  To enter into the Stable Provider role is to automatically trigger her sexual feelings during her Non-Ovulatory phase.  To do this is to create unpleasing Transactional sex. 

 

You could be right about the inverse relationship between security and passion, and I think this matches with a lot of couple's experiences. I have another theory which is based on research on women's brains during orgasms. Since women are stimulated by the mind more than men, foreplay and smooching is more important to women in the achievement of pleasure during sex. I think there is a tendency during marriage or long-term relationships to forego some of the arousing bits that occur when a women is first dating. If men who trigger women's imagination get a greater sexual response from women that would seem to validate this theory.

 

 

In simple equational terms: (1) Men + American Culture = Some Chance of Being Philosophical and Virtuous.  (2) Women + American Culture = Almost Zero Chance of Being Philosophical and Virtuous.  So I am not arguing biological determinism; I'm arguing American cultural determinism.

 

...I can say, with total certainty, that women are by nature duplicitous.  Their menstrual cycle makes them "One Type of Woman" in the three-day window during ovulation, and makes them "The Completely Opposite Type of Woman" in the other twenty-five days during non-ovulation.  

 

You can describe with absolute certainty a woman's nature.... That's a bold claim, my friend. You must have a lot of evidence to make such a statement. The article you posted demonstrates that hormones are released differently depending on where a woman is in her menstrual cycle. Okay, I can accept that as true. But to then say that she is morally a different person? That, assuming she was raised in America, she is therefore incapable of acting virtuously? Do you really believe that? 

 

There's also a major contradiction in your argument. You say that men are capable of acting philosophically against their biological urge, but then you say a woman in a committed relationship knows that her man won't leave her which leads her to feel secure which leads to unsatisfactory sex.  If a philosophically enlightened guy is with a woman who cares more about sex than her relationship, the man won't stick around. So if a woman is not virtuous and her man is virtuous, she knows that her man won't stay which means that she won't feel secure... which, according to your theory, means better sex! Your argument can only apply if we assume that both the man and the woman are not philosophically minded. I will grant you this is true for a majority of relationships, but I fail to see why it's possible for men to be virtuous and not women.

 

 

If you want to raise a family, it's imperative that you, as a man, sacrifice some of your desire for extra-marital sex.  However, my counterargument first asks the dangerous question, "According to FDR's definition of a 'fit mother', what percentage of women are fit enough to be mothers?".  It then argues, "Because that percentage is so low, then all conventions about men sacrificing their search for sexual variety to show commitment to their future children does not primarily benefit children.  It benefits the unfit mothers of children who shouldn't have been born to that particular family situation to begin with." 

 

Low percentage does not equal zero percentage. In my opinion both men and women will be happier if they sacrifice sexual variety for the sake of their future children. It's like achieving a healthy body: you have to sacrifice immediate pleasures like fatty foods and tv -- but if you form habits with the goal of health you will not regret making the sacrifice.... quite the opposite.

[PGP]

Some thoughts on the last few posts. I think of it as animal nature and mastery of nature and mind to something else such as a philosophical-aspiring (PA) life. So, for instance, back in the day, women would have children much earlier in life. Biologically ideal, philosophically not ideal for the species. Now, it's generally later in life, so the possibility of the development of PA life is there to a much greater degree. 

Anecdotally, I have found that women that achieve virtue, have had to overcome a great challenge in life and search for meaning and understanding of their nature, the nature of the world and morality are in a way forced to mastery of their biology and mind and towards virtue (most are lost along the way it seems)  Does this make them more virtuous than someone that has been brought up in a safe, secure and loving family? I think so, because of how they have arrived at it and the struggle they have gone through to achieve it. It's no great achievement to speak english if that was the language in the household.

A woman has value reproductively from 16/17/18 to perhaps 40 in the West. A much shorter time period than for men. Women must master both their biological urges and mind more quickly than men to achieve virtue while having constant access to the spigot of biological validation and meaning and value so to speak via sex. Men have a different challenge to deal with, especially with the welfare state (WS) currently in place. This is one reason why the WS insidious as it guarantees safety and security with no effort on the part of women, whereas back in maybe the 50's, social controls forced women to virtue (or the appearance of it). 

As  I think Stef has said, knowledge of virtue can be used to manipulate by those with evil intentions like politicians or war-mongerers etc. Knowledge of virtue by a women or more precisely, what it looks like, can be extremely dangerous relative to a woman that is still a slave to biology. The latter is a known quantity while the former is a predator. 

This is a bit of a random ramble, but one final point. I think it is an incredible time to be a man. The world is now open and transparent to us if we want it to be. Virtue is now advantageous to a man but more complex and difficult to achieve in these conditions. An easier choice to make but more difficult to achieve. For women, I think it is the other way to an extent. The choice is more difficult to arrive at. The appearance of virtue is rare and the achievement of it rarer still. And I suspect a high level of intelligence is a requirement aswell. 

[MMX2010]

 

MGTOW / red pill is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you assume that women will never change, then you're right - women will never change. But if men start holding women and mothers to a standard and criticize them compassionately and empathetically, and resist the urge to have sex with those who don't meet that standard, then women as a whole I believe will come to realize how much they need strong, virtuous men in their lives.

 

And I believe that if just one non-virtuous man fills a woman's head with blissful memories of sex, then the odds of her being satisfied with you as a husband are made much smaller.  Do you think this is logical?  Do you think this is true?  If so, then a woman's sexual history from ages 16 thru However-Old-She-Is-When-She-Marries-You is crucial to your future marital success.  (And hasn't Stefan cited studies which discovered that the more sexual partners a woman has before marriage, the less likely she'll remain happily married?) 

 

So here's the problem: (1) The creature you seek (woman) has concealed ovulation, so you can't "just look at her" and know whether she's sexually aroused.  (2) You can't "just look at her" and know how many sexual partners a woman has had, because it's not like she glows a different shade of blue every time she experiences a new man.  (3) The culture you live in not only encourages women to seek sexual pleasure in their teens and early twenties, but also deems you misogynistic and stalker-esque for asking a woman about her sexual past.  (4) Even if you are "brave enough" to ask - she can always lie. 

 

The solutions are obvious BUT no one wants to mention them in America, because American women have instituted safeguards against both voicing the solution and pursuing it. 

 

What are you going to do?

 

 

 

 

 

You can describe with absolute certainty a woman's nature.... That's a bold claim, my friend. You must have a lot of evidence to make such a statement. The article you posted demonstrates that hormones are released differently depending on where a woman is in her menstrual cycle. Okay, I can accept that as true. But to then say that she is morally a different person? That, assuming she was raised in America, she is therefore incapable of acting virtuously? Do you really believe that? 

 

 

You didn't read that correctly. 

 

Replace "MMX2010 can describe with absolute certainty a woman's nature." with "MMX2010 can describe with absolute certainty both the effects of the menstrual cycle on woman's thoughts, feelings, and sexual pursuits AND the most typical rationalizations she uses to excuse her sexual choices." 

 

The effects of the menstrual cycle are: (1) She wants a dominant, arousing, not-very-good-father-material man to impregnate her during the three days called ovulation.  (2) She wants a non-dominant, emotionally stable, good provider, excellent father-type man to look after her during the twenty-five days called non-ovulation. 

 

The justifications are: (1) That because "three days" are far fewer than "twenty-five days", then the "Real Woman" should be defined as who she is during the Twenty-Five days.  (If you accept this justification, then her sexual past won't be important to you, and any poor behavior she exhibits during the Three Days will be explained away as "not Really Her".  (2) That because she's giving up the pursuit of sexual variety in her thirties (when her sexual appeal is much lower), you ought to give up the pursuit of sexual variety in your thirties (when your sexual appeal is at its peak).  (If you accept this justification, you'll marry a same-aged woman at either age 25 or 30, hoping to experience ever-growing love as you age.  But what'll most likely happen is that your wife will become a shell of her former beauty AND won't dare let you pursue other, younger women.) 

 

Again, once you accept these truths, the solutions are obvious.  But few, if any, men want to seriously discuss them.  (And the women your age don't want you to discuss them, either!) 

 

 

 

 

There's also a major contradiction in your argument. You say that men are capable of acting philosophically against their biological urge, but then you say a woman in a committed relationship knows that her man won't leave her which leads her to feel secure which leads to unsatisfactory sex.  If a philosophically enlightened guy is with a woman who cares more about sex than her relationship, the man won't stick around. So if a woman is not virtuous and her man is virtuous, she knows that her man won't stay which means that she won't feel secure... which, according to your theory, means better sex! Your argument can only apply if we assume that both the man and the woman are not philosophically minded. I will grant you this is true for a majority of relationships, but I fail to see why it's possible for men to be virtuous and not women.

 

 

If your woman is virtuous, she will accept the truth about both her menstrual cycle and the mismatch between female Sexual Market Value and male Sexual Market Value.  If she is not, she'll insist that neither of those are true, (or that both of them are true, but they shouldn't be broadcasted to everyone because it "hurts women"). 

 

 

 

 

Low percentage does not equal zero percentage. In my opinion both men and women will be happier if they sacrifice sexual variety for the sake of their future children. It's like achieving a healthy body: you have to sacrifice immediate pleasures like fatty foods and tv -- but if you form habits with the goal of health you will not regret making the sacrifice.... quite the opposite.

 

Right.  So women should forsake sexual variety in their teens and early twenties (when their sexual attractiveness is at its peak), just as men should forsake sexual variety in their mid-thirties (when their sexual attractiveness is at its peak). 

 

How many women have you met who either: (1) understand this, and have deliberately avoided sexual variety in their teens and twenties so that they can virtuously demand the same from you in your thirties, OR (2) understand this, but did not deliberately avoid sexual variety in their teens and twenties and so do not expect you to do the same for them in your thirties?  (The woman in the second situation will allow you to have a Mistress, as long as certain rules are met.) 

 

Full disclosure: In my personal life, I've never met any women in the first category, and have never met any woman in the second category.  The woman I wanted to marry may have allowed me to pursue Mistresses, but we never became committed enough to pursue this as a possibility. 

 

I'd be shocked if your results are much different than mine, and it'd be a sure sign that I need to find different women. 

[Matt D]

Great points all around. Very stimulating conversation here.

 

So, for instance, back in the day, women would have children much earlier in life. Biologically ideal, philosophically not ideal for the species. Now, it's generally later in life, so the possibility of the development of PA life is there to a much greater degree. 

Anecdotally, I have found that women that achieve virtue, have had to overcome a great challenge in life and search for meaning and understanding of their nature, the nature of the world and morality are in a way forced to mastery of their biology and mind and towards virtue (most are lost along the way it seems)  Does this make them more virtuous than someone that has been brought up in a safe, secure and loving family? I think so, because of how they have arrived at it and the struggle they have gone through to achieve it. 

I'm wondering why you think it's not advantageous for a woman to seek self-knowledge or PA early in her life. I agree with you that, at least in this conversation, most women I encounter tend to be older (i.e. over 30). Are social and familial pressures greater on young women which is why they have to 'hit rock bottom' first?

 

I would disagree that virtue is greater in individuals who had to overcome great challenges in life. Insofar as morality is objective we cannot say that one's upbringing accounts for a relative measure of their virtue. Otherwise we could never hold accountable abusive parents who did better than their parents. Of course, we may find it admirable and inspiring when out of the smoldering ashes of soul-destroying childhood misery arises an adult who strives to better herself and those around her.

 

And I believe that if just one non-virtuous man fills a woman's head with blissful memories of sex, then the odds of her being satisfied with you as a husband are made much smaller.  Do you think this is logical?  Do you think this is true?  If so, then a woman's sexual history from ages 16 thru However-Old-She-Is-When-She-Marries-You is crucial to your future marital success.  (And hasn't Stefan cited studies which discovered that the more sexual partners a woman has before marriage, the less likely she'll remain happily married?) 

 

 

....If your woman is virtuous, she will accept the truth about both her menstrual cycle and the mismatch between female Sexual Market Value and male Sexual Market Value.  If she is not, she'll insist that neither of those are true, (or that both of them are true, but they shouldn't be broadcasted to everyone because it "hurts women"). 

 

 

....How many women have you met who either: (1) understand this, and have deliberately avoided sexual variety in their teens and twenties so that they can virtuously demand the same from you in your thirties, OR (2) understand this, but did not deliberately avoid sexual variety in their teens and twenties and so do not expect you to do the same for them in your thirties?  (The woman in the second situation will allow you to have a Mistress, as long as certain rules are met.) 

 

I think that sex is a drug. I won't deny that the more sexual partners a women has the harder it is for her to quit the addiction. Certainly men have a hard time telling whether a women is genuinely aroused. However, I don't think this matters. The one thing that men can judge just by looking at a women is her actions. Does she appear comfortable in her own skin or is she constantly trying to please other people? Is she open and curious about you or does she only like to talk about herself and her problems?

 

We're 100% on the same page with regards to honesty in conversations between men and women. I think it's crucial to find out what a woman thinks of patterns in male and female sexuality. If she says that women shouldn't be looked on negatively for being promiscuous or that men need to have engaged in lots of sex in order to prove their manhood, then I would promptly run the other way. Once you are comfortable with the woman's trust I think talking about the influence of menstrual cycles on female arousal is great. I'm glad you brought up the subject here. I will say that men typically avoid these conversations with women and with other men, which I believe is a detriment to relationships as a whole.

 

I honestly don't want lots of female partners because it would get in the way of achieving a happy marriage and family. So if a woman "demands" that I am monogamous in my thirties, that is not the primary issue for me. Let's say that the woman did not sacrifice immediate pleasures when she was in her prime of sexuality but instead engaged in casual sex. The question for me would be does she understand why she was promiscuous and has she addressed that problem in herself through self-work, therapy, and looking critically at the people in her life who enabled that behavior (the choice to show a lack of restraint and boundaries lies with the individual, but it does not occur in isolation). As I mentioned above, I admit this revelation is rare when women are in their twenties and I think it's entirely right to avoid or shun those women who won't admit the destruction they are causing to themselves and their partners.

[PGP]

 

 

I'm wondering why you think it's not advantageous for a woman to seek self-knowledge or PA early in her life. I agree with you that, at least in this conversation, most women I encounter tend to be older (i.e. over 30). Are social and familial pressures greater on young women which is why they have to 'hit rock bottom' first?

 

I would disagree that virtue is greater in individuals who had to overcome great challenges in life. Insofar as morality is objective we cannot say that one's upbringing accounts for a relative measure of their virtue. Otherwise we could never hold accountable abusive parents who did better than their parents. Of course, we may find it admirable and inspiring when out of the smoldering ashes of soul-destroying childhood misery arises an adult who strives to better herself and those around her.

The first point is a bit ambiguous. It is advantageous to the girl/boy to seek self-knowledge at any stage. My observation is that current Western social conditions make the decision to pursue it easier for boys/men than girls/women. Why this is, perhaps women on the board could put forward ideas on this if they agree or disagree.

The second point is interesting for me. If a person is brought up knowing only "good" example and virtue, then have they "achieved" virtue? Objectively, they are virtuous, but have they "achieved" it? Does it matter? I think it matters just the same as if someone is brought up knowing only abuse and continues the abuse in adulthood. A measure of a persons virtuous behaviour is not a measure of the entire person without knowing how and why they arrived at virtue. They could just be very good mimics. The virtue is not objectively greater in a person who has overcome great challenges but the person is greater IMO. Just my opinion.

[Matt D]

The first point is a bit ambiguous. It is advantageous to the girl/boy to seek self-knowledge at any stage. My observation is that current Western social conditions make the decision to pursue it easier for boys/men than girls/women. Why this is, perhaps women on the board could put forward ideas on this if they agree or disagree.

The second point is interesting for me. If a person is brought up knowing only "good" example and virtue, then have they "achieved" virtue? Objectively, they are virtuous, but have they "achieved" it? Does it matter? I think it matters just the same as if someone is brought up knowing only abuse and continues the abuse in adulthood. A measure of a persons virtuous behaviour is not a measure of the entire person without knowing how and why they arrived at virtue. They could just be very good mimics. The virtue is not objectively greater in a person who has overcome great challenges but the person is greater IMO. Just my opinion.

 

Thanks for clarifying. We both agree that seeking self knowledge can be advantageous to overall happiness regardless of gender. But I disagree that social conditions make the decision easier for men. The social programming I have experienced is that psychology is a feminine discipline and that men who are openly interested in their inner self should be condemned as weak or unmanly. I will say that females are generally more attenuated to their peer female to female relationship and this could lead to difficulty and even volatility if the exploration comes up against their existing relationships. In a nutshell, it's easier for women to decide on the pursuit and easier for men to act on it. Is that reasoning similar to what you observe?

 

I wouldn't say that virtue is something you achieve, like nirvana or zen. A person's actions can be virtuous provided two things are present: 1. choice; and 2. the capacity to evaluate the virtue of the action. For simplicity sake, let's equate evil with smoking. If you are brought up in an environment where everyone around you smokes cigarettes and you are told that smoking is the best possible means of health, and you are punished for not smoking, then it's reasonable to say we would be more amazed by someone who came out of these origins and after years of battling addiction became a non-smoker than we would feel toward someone who never touched or encountered cigarettes except in passing and received instruction of the deleterious effects of cigarettes on one's health. However, if you are brought up in an environment where people close to you smoke and punish you for not smoking, BUT you see ads against smoking, all of the top researchers proclaim that smoking causes cancer, your teachers sympathize with your plight and strangers tell you how awful it is to have to go through what you experienced, then we would not actually be awed or inspired when you decided as an adult to quit smoking. The degree to which the rest of the world condemns evil is the degree to which virtue is expected. That doesn't mean we value virtue any less, but it's not something we focus our attention on. Conversely, the degree to which the world turns a blind eye to evil is the degree to which we can admire the courage it takes overcome ungrounded falsehoods.