Several readers have asked that I share my perspective on Pastor Mark Driscoll’s recent Washington Post piece Why men need marriage. Driscoll opens his contribution to the man up and marry career gal sluts genre with an anecdote about a middle aged career woman who never married:
She was smart, funny, interesting, successful, attractive, kind, in her 40s, and still single.
A man of biblical wisdom would recognize that this woman had squandered her youth chasing a feminist dream of career and/or fornication. Were he a wise man, a story starting this way would be a cautionary tale to young Christian women not to make the same mistakes this woman did. However Pastor Driscoll is steeped in the foolishness of our feminist culture and not biblical wisdom. He finds no fault worth mentioning in this woman’s own choices, and instead looks for a man to blame for her terribly mismanaged life:
After my wife Grace and I spent some time with the woman from our church, we could not fathom why no one had married her.
She has been of marriageable age for over twenty years, yet she never married. Pastor Driscoll seems to think this is because men have failed her. It is far more likely that she followed the feminist advice to delay marriage until at least her 30s, while in all likelihood riding the carousel. As a result she may well have lost the ability to experience love and attraction for a normal man. Note that amongst the marriageable attributes he mentioned about this woman he left two out; he didn’t say she was a virgin, and he overlooked entirely the fact that she is almost certainly no longer able to bear children. In fact, notice that all of the attributes he lists are what one would normally advise a woman to look for in a husband (smart, funny, interesting, successful, attractive, kind). He seems to have gone out of his way to cleanse his mind of traditional views of the sexes in marriage. Why else would he refer to a woman using only terms which would apply to a man?
Driscoll then goes on to badly mangle the available statistics on marriage in the US:
And, she’s not alone. For the first time in the America’s history there are more single adults than married. Statistically, the women are more likely than the men to attend college, be working a career track job, and attend church.
What are the guys doing? Often, they’re acting like boys who can shave, getting drunk, watching porn, attending sporting events, and treating responsibility like Superman does green kryptonite.
Statistics on marriage rates vary widely by race, but the fact is that over 90% of white women currently in their 40s have already married. The decline in the number of adults currently married is driven not by a lack of weddings, but by women following the feminist message to delay marriage as long as possible, by higher divorce rates, and by declining rates of remarriage after divorce.
According to the US Census 2009 SIPP data, 39% of all white women aged 50-59 had divorced at least once. This works out to 42% of all white women that age who ever married. For Hispanic women the figures are 27%&30%, and for Black women the figures are 38%&48%. The problem isn’t a lack of men willing to marry, but a lack of women willing to marry while young and stay married.
But Driscoll is apparently entirely unaware of the trends of the last 40 years. Instead he coins a new euphemism for the carousel (fools parade) and ladles out a healthy serving of the Apex Fallacy.
Eventually, some get tired of the fools parade and settle for some guy who is more likely to act like a baby than help raise a baby. These guys make the worst husbands: gambling away the money, out late with the boys a lot, unfaithful, can’t seem to fit a full-time job in around his hobbies, and eventually trading in their 40-year-old wife for two 20-year-old girlfriends.
He sees women thinking with their genitals and seeking out men with dark triad traits and instead of holding them accountable for the devastation they cause their children he blames men in general. Then he trots out the canard that men are driving the divorce epidemic by divorcing older wives when the data proves that divorce rates plummet as wives age.
He ignores the epidemic of women kicking fathers out of their children’s lives committing frivolous divorce and divorce theft and doesn’t warn men to be extremely careful when choosing a wife. Like any other form of addict, he will do or say anything to get his next fix.
Men are like trucks: they drive straighter with a weighted load. Young men are supposed to load themselves up first by being responsible for themselves and not expecting their mom to fill up their sippy cup with beer and push them in a stroller to the unemployment line. Young men who take responsibility for themselves are then ready to marry and take responsibility for the life and joy of their wife.
Modern churches have turned their backs on biblical marriage. Instead of holding wives to their biblical marriage vows they preach that it is a husband’s obligation submit to his wife and to make his wife love him more than any other man she happens to be pursuing. In the place of biblical marriage they now hold up serial monogamy as the key to sexual morality. Driscoll even touches on this. He finds fault with women who are fornicating. Don’t worry, he doesn’t chastise them for sinning. He just wants them to pressure the men they have sex with into marrying them:
Are you the girlfriend who has allowed one of these guys to be with you although there is no clarity regarding what your relationship is or direction for where it’s going?
Imagine what a real Christian pastor instead of a feminist would say to these women. I’m guessing it would go something like:
Are you squandering your youth and fertility chasing the feminist goals of career and casual sex? Are you making yourself less marriageable by not keeping your virginity? For those who are married, are you refusing to submit to your husband as the Bible commands?
If anyone here knows an actual Christian pastor who is serious about biblical marriage and not a feminist wrapped in faux Christianity, please let me know and we can ask him what he would say. In the meantime I’ll close by posing Driscoll’s own question back at him:
Are you a fool? Was your father a fool? When will the folly stop?
“She was smart…”, he says.
Maybe it’s just me, but it seems like when feminists call themselves “smart”, the behavior they’re talking about is usually compulsive shit-testing masquerading as a sort of glib, shallow, girl-powerish intellectual competitiveness. The word has begun to annoy me. Can you imagine a man calling himself “smart”? Other than Stuart Smalley, I mean.
From the rest of the description, I can’t help wondering if Driscoll means the same.
Dalrock, quit dancing around the issue and tell us how you REALLY feel.
I’m in China at the moment. Until I got here I didn’t realize that your blog (and all wordpress.com blogs) are censored by the government. Fortunately, two things are working in my favor to ease my pain. The first is that I found a way to read your blog anyways. The second is that I haven’t see a fat chick ANYWHERE since I left Silicon Valley.
Debi and Michael Pearl teach biblical truths about marriage. Debi Pearl’s book “Created To Be His Help Meet” spanked me and now I am a much better wife!
“Men are like trucks: they drive straighter with a weighted load.” Then he can marry this woman and keep supporting his wife, if he thinks that it is such a good idea.
I am rather surprised that Mark Driscoll wrote such drivel. I can remember when the stuff that came out his mouth would make your average feminist think he was worthy of stoning.
Of course I agree that much of what ails women in the marriage “market” if you will, is about the refusal to acknowledge that the best time to marry is when you’re young, attractive, and most fertile. But few will acknowledge this reality. I haven’t followed Driscoll’s ministry or even seen a video of his in recent years except the one I disagreed with a while back, but this is rather disappointing.
It bothers me that Christian ministers are accepting the left’s narrative for why it is becoming harder for women to marry.
Heh, this schlub is not a priest, he’s an ornamented mangina. A smarmy sycophant who’s preaching his rancid snake oil “faith” to saggy hags and shrill and phony shrews.
Yet despair ye not! Mayhap he could sell indulgance to born again “virgins”? Sprinkle some Holy Water over their “well travelled” vaginas, spout some mumbo jumbo about the Virgin Mary’s spiritual powers of innocence….and miraculously all is forgiven and the woman rises again in absolute holy and mint condition. Immaculate conception, bubba, a warped and out of control shindig of chivalry.
Driscoll, a Christian pastor, says this:
“I’m a pastor, and I know this will seem crazy, but let’s put down the remote, set aside the porno, and see if maybe the Bible has any wisdom since what we are doing isn’t working.”
He quotes scripture stating it was not good for the man to be alone, and that a man must leave his parents and cleave to his wife. Driscoll elucidates the man’s marital obligations.
But note that Driscoll assiduously avoids this, which sets out the complementary obligations of wife and husband.
Eph. 5:24-25: “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her ”
A couple of things about this:
1. Modern wives don’t want to hear this passage. They don’t want to hear even of the concept of wives having marital obligations to husbands at all. They certainly don’t want to hear that they have a duty to submit to a husband.
2. Fueled by feminism, modern American women completely misunderstand and deliberately distort and mischaracterize what biblical submission is. It means she steps into the role of First Officer. It does not mean she is a doormat. It does not mean she has no say in anything. It does not mean she has no input in decisions major or minor. It means only that she must willingly accept his leadership of her and his responsibility for her.
If Driscoll were living up to his responsibility to shepherd his flock, he’d be teaching this to young women. It’s too late for the parishioner he writes of in his WaPo piece.
I wonder if the proliferation of these “man up” articles has something to do with possible government plans to enact a bachelor tax in the future.
American Churchianity, having largely driven men away, is now wholly dependent on keeping the women happy. It’s that simple. Expect more of this Satanic drivel from the fake-Church.
Women are cruising to the rock they really wanted. “Somebody left the gate open”.
This bit by Driscoll reminds me of something my husband said recently:
Of course, my husband’s background and experiences are probably far removed from most of the commentators here, but he was telling me recently that he remembered almost the exact moment when he realized it was time to get out of hanging in the streets and start taking life seriously. Not long before he met me, in fact.
So while there may be something to what Mark Driscoll is saying about responsibility being a major part of the growing up process, the fact is that there are very few women exemplifying the character that makes a young man think of settling down.
Driscoll truly dropped the ball here. Like many Christians, I think personal attachment to women they perceive as jilted is preventing these preachers from asking the right questions or from doling out the kind of tough love advice that will help young women make better choices.
@ Elspeth
“I am rather surprised that Mark Driscoll wrote such drivel. I can remember when the stuff that came out his mouth would make your average feminist think he was worthy of stoning.”
Supply and demand, I fear. As Driscoll points out, women are much more likely to attend Church than men and he’s serving them a heaping plateful of self-serving projection. He needs to keep them sweet to keep himself in a job. He needs men to marry them to maintain the cashflow. Of course, he would still maintain that it is indeed the Lord’s plan to maintain marriage (and probably believe it), but subconsciously he’s quite happy with divorce and chucking men under the bus.
@Elspeth
It is almost like there is a missing signal. 🙂
I think there is basic truth to the concept that marriage and parenthood can force a degree of growth, just as other milestones and responsibilities in life can. But this is then extrapolated to the absurd to suggest that all unmarried/childless men are childish, and that all men and women who have married and/or had children are therefore more grown up. It also as you point out entirely ignores the elephant in the middle of the room that feminists have been retooling marriage largely unopposed for over 40 years. To have the same church which is collaborating with feminists in destroying marriage try to shame more men into marriage is the final straw.
yep. Why didn’t this preacher visit the issue of how many cocks she has had over the last 20 years? Let’s get the scoop on her substance abuse. Abortions? STD’s? Let’s get the whole picture before we start coming to conclusions, lest we get this obviously biased position that its not the woman’s fault at all. Can’t be taking responsibility or anything.
I bet I could spend 5 minutes with her and tell the world exactly why she isn’t married (with uncanny accuracy) so this dude loses serious credibility with any critical thinker, and only gains it with the braying sheep. How do we know she isn’t a full-fledged kook? Take his word for it?
I think some men have found marriage to suit them well, and with a quality woman, it CAN be great! A woman who wants the same things, heads the same direction, has her head together and a little class and maturity… such a woman could prosper and fortify a man nicely.
Seems like everyone wants to point the finger at everyone else, but the fact is, if you want a successful LTR with a woman, you better be discriminating enough (and have enough SMP value to effect choice) to choose wisely…. or you have to learn how to teach the otherwise untrained, irresponsible chicks you have left to choose from.
Require a woman to submit to you, and be a solid leader yourself, and you can find success. She WILL submit, because she is designed to, and will respond well and feel loved and be loving, and you can make it.
If you do not require her submission, you will never get it, and you are doomed.
I’m glad you picked this apart. A while back, I spent a few evenings watching a bunch of his online sermons and Q&A sessions, but failed to notice that he wasn’t challenging women at all.
On the positive side, he takes a dim view to sinning without repentance and blasts hypocrites, which is more than I’ve seen in any church I’ve stepped foot in. But you know, I think he only aims that level of rhetoric to men. I’ll have to re-watch to see if this is the case.
I agree 100%, Dalrock. It is perfectly possible for a man to be mature and responsible without a wife and family in tow and it’s a repudiation of what is clearly written in Scripture to suggest otherwise.
If she doesn’t believe in her heart that submission to her husband is the right thing, and understand how much better things run when the man is the head of the family, you are not going to be able to “require” her to submit. Don’t even try.
I cannot say thins emphatically enough: Either she is submissive or she isn’t. It cannot be forced.
If she’s not, no matter how much you like her or how pretty she is, just cut your losses and keep looking.
@ Mark:
Hahaha, that stupid commercial.
Anyways, the interesting thing I find out about “growing up” as a man is that it usually occurs AS the responsibilities mount. My father has often said that when he turned 27 (and more importantly had me) is when he suddenly had to grow up. He didn’t think he was ready for it and BAM now he had to rise to the challenge. I would think that is usually par for the course for most normal men. It’s why you see the guy who usually goofs off the most or shirks any kind of hard work in an organized setting all of a sudden get put in charge of something. Yea it usually irked those of us who were responsible but it did usually cause said person to rise to the occasion.
.Elspeth:
RE your comment at 9/37 am: There must have been something to propel your husband out of where he was and to where he got himself. There is always some turning point for a young man that gets him out of his rut and into where he should be. What was it for your husband? For me it was that I would never be self-sufficient, I’d always be in the same place, if I didn’t do something different. I had some hope, something that I could cling to, to get me out of that place and hopefully to something better. I lived in a less hostile educational and economic environment 25 years agol than our young men face.
I fear that too many men have nothing to look forward to. They see an educational system that cares nothing for actually educating them, instead preferring to anesthetize and eunuchize them. If his father is still around, he’s feminized. If he’s not, his mother has kicked the father out, and the father is emasculated and impoverished, encumbered with crushing alimony and child support obligations. He’s seen his father or has a friend whose father has been chewed up and spit out by the dviorce meat grinder. His mother is a feminized ball buster. He’s not prepared for college or trade school. He sees economic devastation all around him. He has no economic opportunity, no jobs.
The women around him are career girls or excelling in college. They don’t want him because their hypergamous instincts have them looking for doctors or lawyers who those women will divorce in 5 to 10 years. Or the women hook up with bad boy bikers, rock band members, or the local douchebags they knew from high school until their biiological clocks start roaring in their ears like freight trains. If he’s lucky enough to go to college, the women he attends college with want the aforementioned medical or law students. Before then, the college girls let the alpha bad boy frat boys ravage them, turn them into sluts, and let the girls develop wildly inflated self-assessments of their own sexual market values.
And the church is no help either. The modern American church offers nothing of any real substance to young men. Most modern Christian churches have completely jettisoned the Gospel message and are no longer cultural forces in their communities. Filled with modern women and fresh off the carousel sluts, the Church tries to sell a feel good message of “prosperity gospel” or “you need to man up and marry these used up women” or “we’re all about friendships and love here”.
The churches are mostly filled with women of various ages. In the case of old line churches, they are compised overwhelmingly of senior citizens, couples married for 25+ years, widows and widowers. Most of the women who attend do so because their parents did for 40 years, or because they want to get a beta provider after spending 5 to 10 years on the carousel. Our average young man is sold a fraud that the women who attend are somehow different from nonbelieving women. He is told that a Christian woman is not like those bitchy, entitlement princesses he’s used to finding “out in the world”. In fact, it’s even worse in church, because he’s being sold a bill of goods. Single church women are almost always the following:
1. Girls who are too homely, too weird or too socially unskilled for a place outside.
2. Women between 28 and 45 who have hit The Wall or are about to; are former carousel riders with body counts well into double digits, and who Need A Beta Provider Right Now.
3. Divorced women (some twice and thrice) coming off a failed marriage who want to “meet a Christian man” and “do it God’s way” this time.
4. Ultrahypergamous young women who are looking for a Soulmate and The Man Whom God Has Promised To Me and Prepared Just Especially For Me. Her man is the Apostle Paul, George Clooney, Warren Buffett and Brad Pitt rolled into one. Anything less, any slight imperfection or deviation from her Perfect Man means that “he is not The One” and resutls in immediate rejection.
So where does this leave our young man? What motivates him? He needs to be taught Game. But unfortunately, no one has taught him about inner game or outer game.
What’s the solution?:
Also I have to say I’ve noticed that even the best of preachers, the ones who do indeed challenge Christians to live as the Bible calls us to live and to really examine our own hearts, they still never come against women strong enough. I don’t know if they think because they aren’t women that they’ll leave it to the women’s group ministries to do that or because they’re men and out of place to do it but they still succumb to the inability to call women out on the spade they are. It really is disappointing.
OffTheCuff
On the positive side, he takes a dim view to men’s sinning without repentance and blasts some hypocrites,
Fixed it for you.
Liked the comment about the virgin mary above…. it’s one of the many reasons why Ireland has always been a hotbed of offthescale levels of misandry. once again the post and comment discussion are full of gems of insight and I thank you all for keeping up this small cell of reason against the madness of the 21st century.
“Men are like trucks: they drive straighter with a weighted load.”
Driscoll is wrong. Men are more like truck drivers who have a vested interest in transporting their load. Where is a man’s vested interest in loading up a wife and transporting her in today’s world? The simple answer is that there isn’t one.
People like Driscoll think men ought to drive the marriage truck for free. That’s the role of a slave not a man.
@Elspeth… thanks for your comment. I must strongly disagree, however, about “she is either submissive or she isn’t”
My experience is that almost ALL women are submissives, many of them just don’t know it yet. Most of the women I have brought into submission were staunchly opposed to it and found it outrageous and unthinkable. This is because no one has presented it properly. When I reveal it for the fun and beautiful and fulfilling thing that it is, we are in business, and the most opposed, high-spirited women make the best submissives of all.
When I say to “require” submission, as a man, what I mean is that if a man introduces the D/s dynamic, and lets his woman know that in order for them to function, his authority must be established, then he will often get it. If he does it right, and does it well, even the most staunch feminist will say “ok!” in spite of herself.
Further, if a man holds his ground and requires a position of authority with a woman, if she doesn’t sign up, he has GOT to be willing to cut her loose. Many times, holding the line right there, in itself, will gain the submission desired. Once again, not just any loser or weasel can gain the submission of a quality woman. A good Dominant, however, can gain the submission of almost any woman.
Elspeth is right on the money here:
“I cannot say this emphatically enough: Either she is submissive or she isn’t. It cannot be forced.
If she’s not, no matter how much you like her or how pretty she is, just cut your losses and keep looking.”
A biblical wife chooses to submit to a husband. The queen submits to her king’s rule, but she must agree to be ruled.
One of his childhood friends ending up in the morgue and another in prison. That, his parents (he actually had 2 unlike most people in his old neighborhood) raised him better Like I said, unusual experiences from most men in this corner of the web. When he lost his mother, that was the straw that broke the camel’s back. He has always been a person who feels the pull of duty and he felt compelled to be a good example to his younger brothers. His father was left reeling (his mother was a really amazing woman) and someone had to step up. So he did.
Sojourner 10:20 am:
Pastors don’t challenge women enough to live up to Eph. 5:24-25 because feminism and the dominant culture has twisted and distorted that verse, and mangled its meaning, such that the true message never gets through. Most women, even Christian women, respond with “I don’t gotta submit to no MAN!!! I”m a StrongIndependentWoman (TM)!! I am Woman, hear me ROOOARRR!! You go grrrrrl!”
Churches minister often to the lost, the broken, the downtrodden and the hurt. Most of those are women unlucky in love or coming off a failed marriage. They are lost, confused and injured. But the message of compassion and rebuilding is not being properly leavened with messages of truth.
There is too much “We’re here for you, and God knows the thoughts and plans he has for you, and Jesus LOOOOVEEEES you” and not enough “Let’s look at this and see what your part was in getting you to this point. You are responsible for your choices and your conduct, which got you here.”
Pastors also don’t challenge women in this way because most of their memberships and financial support come overwhelmingly from women, and they know this. Any woman who feels threatened or offended by a paster votes with her family’s feet and wallet. It’s not supposed to be like this, but today, women are the primary drivers of Church attendance and membership. The family belongs where SHE wants to belong, attends when and where SHE wants to attend, and gives the money SHE thinks should be given.
I’ve seen this so many times: Women hear a message they think is threatening or offensive or a little too close to the truth. The women are up in arms. They threaten to leave the church en masse. They browbeat their husbands into following along. They threaten to withhold monetary gifts and tithes. They threaten to stop volunteering. The director of Christian education and the lay leader quit in a huff, and tell everyone who will listen that they’re taking their ball and going to someone else’s playground.
Giving to churches is now considered discretionary spending. Most women will not give or tithe to a church that preaches a “woman submit to husbands” message.
“Men are like trucks” – ah, the robot / domestic animal model of “manhood”.This is why some of us have a difficult time telling the difference between the Jezebel type feministsas and the oh so traditional conservatives. Neither of them seem to be willing to regard men as even human at all.
TheSolomonPresss.com:
“My experience is that almost ALL women are submissives, many of them just don’t know it yet. Most of the women I have brought into submission were staunchly opposed to it and found it outrageous and unthinkable. ”
How did you achieve this? And did you reveal to them that you were going to do this beforehand, or did you wait until it happened to show them they had submitted?
I do have to admit, the church I went to yesterday (here in the SF valley of SoCal) did seem to have A LOT of women. It was bordering on 3 or 4 to 1 I think. It was funny though because, having been a Christian so long now, I cared more for the people there then whatever the pastor was saying (though not without hearing it).
Deti:
“2. Fueled by feminism, modern American women completely misunderstand and deliberately distort and mischaracterize what biblical submission is. It means she steps into the role of First Officer. It does not mean she is a doormat. It does not mean she has no say in anything. It does not mean she has no input in decisions major or minor. It means only that she must willingly accept his leadership of her and his responsibility for her.”
Sorry, but this sounds like feminism to me as well. Sugar coating. Marriage is a two person deal. If person B is to submit to person A like “the Church submits to Christ,” then person B is no “Executive Officer.” Who does she have to be an “officer” of or above? There are no non commisioned officers or enlisted men. There is only person A and person B, if person A is the boss then person B is the subordinate. They can’t both be “the boss.” And being “second in command” of a two person team DOES mean that you have little or no say in the decisions, major or minor. At most, you can express your opinion if the boss wants you to,,but the decisions, by definition, are left to the boss (otherwise, he wouldn’t be the boss).
I’m not a Christian, so, frankly, I don’t care what “Ephesians” or any other book of the bible says. But to be a Christian one has to believe this stuff. And that’s why so many feminists and women in general are fake Christians. They are, and want to be, part of a religion that tells them, in no uncertain terms and without sugar coating, that they are to do as they are told by their husbands. Rather than quit the religion, they continue to believe that they do not have to do as they are told, and act on that belief. And they try to sugar coat the clear meaning of what to them, supposedly, is a divinely inspired book. You can be a feminist or you can be a Christian, you can’t be both. A woman can be a good, submissive wife (according to the bible) or she can be an “officer” in some other arrangement. She can’t be both.
From the article:
“Men are like trucks: they drive straighter with a weighted load. Young men are supposed to load themselves up first by being responsible for themselves and not expecting their mom to fill up their sippy cup with beer and push them in a stroller to the unemployment line. Young men who take responsibility for themselves are then ready to marry and take responsibility for the life and joy of their wife.”
Two can play at truck metaphors…if you have ever driven a truck, and I doubt seriously that the good reverend here has, you know that it is easy enough to drive it straight without a load. True, it can be even easier when the truck is loaded, BUT that depends on one crucial thing: that the truck be loaded properly. A truck poorly loaded, with the weight all or mostly on one side or the other is almost impossible to drive straight. And, I submit, that is the metaphor for modern marriage that we are looking at. Marriage 2.0 is a disastrously badly loaded truck. All the weight (all the responsibility) is on one side, the husband’s, while the wife’s side is almost completley empty. To drive the truck straight, the husband has to grossly overcompensate for this lop sided ness.He has to keep “pulling the truck” in her direction. In other words, because she can “Eat Pray Love” him at anytime, he has to continuously bend over backwards to please her (“take responsibility for the…joy of the wife”). But, as we have been told many, many times by the Married Gamesters, that is not what she “really” wants either, so the husband, while constantly minding all that weight that can topple the truck over at any time, must also cleverly “Game” his wife too. I analogize this to suddenly turning the truck back in the other direction when the efforts to compensate for the imbalance threaten to pull the truck off the road.
The reverend seems to have no understanding of Marriage 2.0 at all. It is as if everything else stayed the same as it was back in the 1950’s, but men, either for some unfathomable reason or because their mothers started coddling them too much, just decided to blow off marriage. Out of the blue, they simply chose, en masse, to play video games and get drunk rather than marry and have kids. No fault divorce? “Dead beat” Dad? “Domestic violence?” “Child Support?” Any of those terms ring a bell, rev?
“Deti: … It means she steps into the role of First Officer. It does not mean she is a doormat.”
That’s a beautiful analogy, and I think many women AND men don’t really get it. “Woman as doormat” is how most people perceive Biblical marriage, so both genders tend to shy away from it. Churchianity doesn’t do a very good job of exploding this myth, or other myths, and the Mark Driscolls are why.
“Elspeth: …I can remember when the stuff that came out his mouth would make your average feminist think he was worthy of stoning.”
Driscoll hasn’t stopped offending women, feminist or not. Like so many “Christian” leaders, the center of his agenda is his own ego. He misuses the Bible to “preach” whatever message will bring him the most followers (and their money.) His understanding of Christianity is so politicized and so shallow he doesn’t even realize that he’s contradicting himself at every turn. I have no idea what constituency he’s pandering to one week to the next.
Out of one side of his mouth, he tells men to man-up and marry used-up, independent spinsters. Out of the other, he tells them to exercise their authority and demand virtue and obedience from their wives. Maybe I’m biased, but I don’t like the “ideal Christian man” he seems to be promoting.
Am I the only one who’s picturing this: Man doesn’t seek virtuous young compatible woman to be his First Officer in a balanced marriage. Instead, Man seeks misguided, fallen woman, and uses his God-given authority to “reform” her. Apparently his reward is having a useful doormat. (Until she divorces him for “emotional abuse.”)
To be honest, I can’t bring myself to read more than a few pages of Driscoll’s brand of drivel, so it may be that my opinion is under-informed.
My experience is that almost ALL women are submissives, many of them just don’t know it yet.
Solomon, you may have a point about most women being submissive. But I am of the opinion that a man shouldn’t have to work at getting his wife to submit. Unfortunately, most men don’t have the kind of frame my husband has (yes, I’m bragging). And while I appreciate that “game” is useful, I imagine it must be exhausting to always have to be on your guard so as to keep her from sensing weakness.
When a wife is truly submissive, her husband can naturally step up into his role as a leader. But when she isn’t, the whole thing is just a ruse waiting to come unglued. The minute life draws any kind of vulnerability out of him, she’ll go in for the kill, LOL.
I think you may underestimate how submissive women really are. I don’t even pretend to embrace it fully myself. I believe in my heart that it’s the natural and godly order of things, I have a very strong husband who will not be ruled by me, and our family functions better when everyone knows their place and there is no jockeying for authority.
But I’d be lying if I said I was never tempted to be subversive when I don’t get my way.
Alcuin, another blogger who calls out feminized Christians for this sort of nonsense has a different conclusion:
If you want a religion that provides strong gender roles, young women one could marry that haven’t seen a procession of protrusions and has absolutely nothing but condemnation for the modern sexual marketplace you’re looking at Islam.
I’m a total nonbeliever and love pork, tattoo and alcohol way too much to consider conversion from the Taoist/Nietzschean ethical framework I cleave to but if I were looking for a religious/cultural framework that would best support a strong traditional family structure, I’d be very, VERY hard pressed to find it here in typical American religious fare. Perhaps the Orthodox church is a little better, but they don’t have the largest presence here stateside do they?
“…At most, you can express your opinion if the boss wants you to,,but the decisions, by definition, are left to the boss (otherwise, he wouldn’t be the boss).”
Isn’t that precisely the “First Officer” Deti was describing? I didn’t see any implication that she was to have authority to enforce her “opinions.”
The mischaracterizations are endless today, LOL. Why is it that the idea of a woman submitting to her husband’s authority automatically brings out the “not entitled to her own mind” rhetoric?
I assure you that a woman who supports her husband’s leadership actually has actually created a scenario where he is more inclined to take her thoughts into consideration and more inclined to leave the things she is most gifted at in her hands. Without micromanaging.
I am shocked that people just don’t seem able to comprehend that this isn’t a tyrannical model. If it is, it’s not being executed properly.
Wasn’t Driscoll a life long alpha bad boy before his conversion? If so, he should have no illusions about female nature/feminism et. al. This is oportunism at it’s worst.
@ Elspeth Why is it that the idea of a woman submitting to her husband’s authority automatically brings out the “not entitled to her own mind” rhetoric?
It’s because people don’t know the difference between dominant and domineering.
@Deti
2. Fueled by feminism, modern American women completely misunderstand and deliberately distort and mischaracterize what biblical submission is. It means she steps into the role of First Officer. It does not mean she is a doormat. It does not mean she has no say in anything. It does not mean she has no input in decisions major or minor. It means only that she must willingly accept his leadership of her and his responsibility for her.
This is where the conniving and utter devious nature of women comes to full blossom.
By choosing bad boys, losers, drunks, nit-wits, and assorted misfits, they can simply point to the neanderthal they chose (to sleep with) and say, “what, submit to him, are you kidding”…and smart people far and wide will agree, the guy you chose is too stupid to trust; they can create their own self-fulfilling prophesy.
Any woman who does not want to willingly submit to her husband’s lordship and leadership is unfit for marriage and motherhood. Full stop.
And thus, the curtain closed on marriage once and forever….:D
Buck:
Indeed.
1. The wife is supposed to submit FIRST.
2. In return, the husband is to love his wife and give himself up for her.
3. If he’s a douchebag thug bad boy, he’s not loving her and giving himself up for her. He’s not a fit husband.
4. But she’s not required to submit to some douchebag she sleeps with.
5. How’s she going to get a husband if she’s sleeping with douchebags? SHe, not the douchebag, is to blame.
@Elspeth… you are right. Ideally, men should not have to do battle with a woman to gain her submission…. but in fact, he DOES have to do so. Unearned submission isn’t of much value to me anyway, and women run that subversive shit, either in upfront shit-tests or along the way, because they LIKE when he passes them, and they need that to happen, for their own reassurance and attraction and dopamine fix.
It’s not exhausting, its a fun game. Further, once this becomes a part of who you are, its not a matter of striving for position anymore, it comes so naturally, that passing shit tests becomes automatic for a Man.
I want to offer up this brilliant article:
http://www.takeninhand.com/the.subjection.of.women
and would recommend that that @pb look around that site thoroughly as well. My answer to your question would be too long and potentially to general, because it is a case-by-case answer. The short answer would be that if a woman understands Dom/sub things, bring your Alpha stuff up front, and make it fun. If a woman is uninitiated and unsure of any of that stuff, then you want to present the Dom/sub dynamic in smaller bits, and by showing, not telling. You don’t need to explain theory, just run it. When her attraction is high, you can introduce some of the theory, and in key moments, step up your exertion of authority with measured skill and tact. She will be fully attracted and absolutely unable to resist. The more beta schlubs she has disrespected, the more excited she will become at these revelations, and her newfound inability to usurp you.
Solomon you really should be specific that you are a D/S lifestyle person which might be somewhat… alternative for the religious people who read this blog. I have no qualms with your lifestyle (though i fear you ignore the capacity to be royally f-ed over by a sub suddenly switching on you and calling the police) but it doesn’t really fit into the dynamic of the commentators you are replying to.
D/s is actually fully confirmed and supported scripturally. It’s not about whips and chains, at it’s heart. The parallels between King/subject, Man/bride, parent/child, Authority and structure, as the Word teaches is it, is, in fact, the direct basis for my theory.
The God of Israel is a God of order, my friend. I think He is quite clear about D/s in scripture.
@ solomon
That link plays into the woman’s frame and gives her all the choices. I used to read taken in hand but its way to feminist. you cant be submissive and feminist, they are mutually exclusive. Again EVERYTHING in that link plays into the woman’s frame not the mans.
@ybm
I think Solomon’s insights are extremely valuable for Christians and a damn sight more useful than Driscoll’s drivel. How he uses that information is of lesser import as far as the discussion goes, just as Christians can use Roissy’s information morally if they so choose to.
@Joshua- how you come to a conclusion that that article is feminist is beyond me, my friend. I am at a loss.
Maybe your point is that the one element of female input on the protocol is that she has to consent to being subjugated, and that makes the whole thing feminist… but I disagree. I think it is far more meaningful to have the woman consent to My authority, than for me to gain fully non-consensual authority, which is pure slavery. I guess I might be down for owning slaves who have absolutely no say in anything ever, and I can do anything I want to them….
but uh…
Are you saying than anything less than being an all-out slave owner is feminist?
You can take that stuff any way you like it, brother, I won’t argue… but I actually like girls, and have them elevated in my mind at least a slight tick above cattle.
I want a willing and worthy servant, not a mindless slave.
Would it be feminist of me to treat that servant well, too?
Suz:
“…At most, you can express your opinion if the boss wants you to,,but the decisions, by definition, are left to the boss (otherwise, he wouldn’t be the boss).”
“Isn’t that precisely the “First Officer” Deti was describing? I didn’t see any implication that she was to have authority to enforce her “opinions.””
I don’t think so. An executive officer actually has a duty, and a right, to express opinions. A submissive wife does not. She can offer opionions, as I said, only if the husband wants her to. Also, a “First Officer” implies that there are other, subordinate officers, non coms, and enlisted men. Again, marriage is a two person deal. The way I see it, there are three possible arrangements…an equal partnership, in which neither person can make decisions unilterally, person A as the boss, or person B as the boss. The Bible says it should be option two, person A as the boss. Women, as persons B, don’t like that, so they pretend the Bible “really” means option one (equal partnership), or they try to sugar coat what option two “really” means.
Elspeth:
“The mischaracterizations are endless today, LOL. Why is it that the idea of a woman submitting to her husband’s authority automatically brings out the “not entitled to her own mind” rhetoric? I assure you that a woman who supports her husband’s leadership actually has actually created a scenario where he is more inclined to take her thoughts into consideration and more inclined to leave the things she is most gifted at in her hands. Without micromanaging.I am shocked that people just don’t seem able to comprehend that this isn’t a tyrannical model. If it is, it’s not being executed properly”
Blah,blah, blah. As far as the Bible is concerned, he’s like Christ and you’re like the Church. He gives the orders, you obey. He’s God, you’re not. If he wants your opinoin, he’ll ask for it, but if not, he won’t, or, he’ll give it to you! A good, submissive servant MIGHT be entitled to her own mind, but she had better shut up about it once the master has decided. IF he thinks she’s good at something, he might, AT HIS SOLE DISCRETION, let her make some minor sub decisions. But he is under no compulsion to do so. And, yes, he can be a tyrant if he thinks it best. He is supposed to love you, but tyrants often love their people, they just think they know what’s best for them. You belong to a religion, that, properly and honestly understood, has decided that the best role for you is one of subumission. You can accept that, or you can kid yourself that it “really” means something else.
CL:
“It’s because people don’t know the difference between dominant and domineering.”
Oh please. Being “dominant” means you can be domineering, if you choose.
Deti:
“1The wife is supposed to submit FIRST.
2. In return, the husband is to love his wife and give himself up for her.
3. If he’s a douchebag thug bad boy, he’s not loving her and giving himself up for her. He’s not a fit husband.
4. But she’s not required to submit to some douchebag she sleeps with.
5. How’s she going to get a husband if she’s sleeping with douchebags? SHe, not the douchebag, is to blame.”
That’s not what the Bible says. It gives two commands. One to the wife, one to the husband. The wife is commanded to submit, the husband to love. It does NOT make one command conditional on the other. If a woman marries a dochebag, she must still obey him. That’s what God commands, as per the Bible. Of course, the Bible also commands that the husband love the wife. Putting aside the notion that there are different views on what “love” means and accepting the idea that he is not loving her, she still has the obligation to obey him, douchebag thug bad boy or not. Whether he is “fit” to be her husband or not is irrelevant. He IS her husband, and she must submit to him.
The Soloman Press:
“Elspeth… you are right. Ideally, men should not have to do battle with a woman to gain her submission…. but in fact, he DOES have to do so. Unearned submission isn’t of much value to me anyway, and women run that subversive shit, either in upfront shit-tests or along the way, because they LIKE when he passes them, and they need that to happen, for their own reassurance and attraction and dopamine fix.”
Not what the Bible says either. It is not just “ideal,” but a divine command that she submits. And does so whether he runs “Game” on her or not.
“It’s not exhausting, its a fun game. Further, once this becomes a part of who you are, its not a matter of striving for position anymore, it comes so naturally, that passing shit tests becomes automatic for a Man.”
Speak for yourself. You don’t get to decide unilaterally what is and is not “automatic for a Man.” For me, playing alpha games and passing shit tests is a huge, fucking pain in the ass. I don’t like doing it. When I was young, it MIGHT have been worthwhile for me to do this to get a new, sexy, hot piece of ass. But it is not something that I would even consider doing on a lifelong basis. You can’t square it with the Bible, cuz the wife is commanded to submit whether the husband is Mr. Alpha Centurian Game God or beta nerd loser boy.
As I said, I’m not a Christian, so I don’t really care what the Bible says. But I will reiterate that being married today is liking driving a badly loaded truck. I would have to oversteer (bend over backwards) to correct for that. And then have to “Game” to correct the corrections. I don’t like oversteering (bending over backwards) and I don’t like correcting for oversteering (Gaming). I see no reason why a man should marry under these conditions. Marriage is a voluntary state. One needn’t marry. By not marrying, one frees oneself from the obligation to either bend over backwards,or to Game, or to do both.
OT but right in line with some earlier posts, Dalrock.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086826/Costa-Concordia-survivors-nightmare-scenes-people-fought-escape-sinking-cruise-ship.html
Feminism. It’s all fun and games until someone needs a lifeboat.
@ruddytunstone…. to each their own. Play it however you like it.
I prefer to gain submission by having big brass balls, instead of hiding behind a bible verse and demanding that a woman do that even though in real life I am not worthy of it.
Yes, the bible says “submit”, but no matter what that verse says, its not going to be genuine or lasting, if it is not fully supported by the man personally and independently inspiring said submission. You can whine about how the bible says to submit, to a woman, all day long, but it will amount to a hill of beans if that’s all you got to go on. Brass balls makes it really easy for a woman to obey that scripture.
I’m also going to have to say that your description of the endless shit-tests that are such a pain in the ass makes it sound like… well, I don’t know. I don’t have that complaint.
Anyway, rock on.
“I wonder if the proliferation of these “man up” articles has something to do with possible government plans to enact a bachelor tax in the future.”
I think its coming. With the economy getting progressively worse, all those single mums will have to be paid for somehow. So I can see the state going after single men who are not “pulling their weight” via extra taxation.
Solomon, you are outing some mangina issues…….
Being nice to a woman is a signal for her to trample you. Brain chemicals are funny things, creating excitement in a woman is easy, but get carried away and you could do damage.
D/s is life. Just watch the wildlife channel for a bit.
Oh and shit-tests….nip them in the bud, or forever subjugate your self.
Mark Driscoll is the apex fallacy. He married his wife in college when both of them were quite young, he had his wife working full time, getting pregnant regularly and church planting through the early years of their marriage (for non-Christians, this is like having your wife work two full-time jobs and raise your kids and do all the housework with no childcare and no request for help from you), and his wife is young, conventionally attractive and highly fertile and devoted to him. He has also fended off women trying to peel him away from his wife (literally) for nearly the entire time he’s been a pastor.
He is pretty much the definition of natural Christian alpha. So of course he says what he says about manning up, he doesn’t really get what it’s like to not be one.
And just for the record, that is a church that will disfellowship for frivolous divorce, or defending it. So they are not completely caught up in the feminist thing, to be fair to them. They have lost membership over the strictness of their divorce policy and they choose the Biblical grounds over people’s feelings.
All that said, it is a church full of conventionally attractive women (and men), disproportionately so and I have found it is hard for people to be as blunt as they ought with women who are 7-9. It is a church full of very earnest, very confused, very beautiful women and I think that plays subconsciously into the man-up thing. As in, beauty and sincerity ought to be enough. Many of the pastors have attractive wives and married very young (under 25, in some cases under 20), so I think it’s just one of those deals where the leadership doesn’t understand what the flock is going through because they completely sidestepped it.
Obviously the commenters here have some idea why very beautiful women are not able to get extremely handsome men to commit to marriage, even when both are Christians.
Yes, I’ve heard this before. And Driscoll’s not big on birth control either, LOL. There are a few positions I’ve heard credited to him that are wholly out of step with feminist ideology. That’s why this series of articles surprised me. I am thinking he is misguided and not looking at the thing from all sides. I am inclined to think that the large pool of attractive unmarried women in their church makes it a little harder for him to see how they may have contributed to their involuntarily single plight.
Factoring in that Christianity teaches that once you convert, you enter into a new life (which I believe as well), I can see how maybe he has a hard time figuring why these women can’t land a husband now,
“And, yes, he can be a tyrant if he thinks it best.”
“For me, playing alpha games and passing shit tests is a huge, fucking pain in the ass. I don’t like doing it.”
So which is it? Marry an intelligent woman who *gasp* occasionally has an opinion, lead her and trust her to follow, trust he to make the decisions she’s capable of making well; or make yourself a slave to the tiring process of enslaving her and therefore having to micromanage her every move?
@Suz
Clearly, don’t get married
For the life of me I have never understood what so many Christians see in Mark Driscoll. Most of his statements and the things he does seem to be entirely centered on him proving that he’s a real man and shaming pretty much any guy who makes different choices or has different hobbies from him as “not real men”. To Driscoll, spending one hour playing video games is a stupid waste of one’s time and contributing to male immaturity, but he has admitted that he LOVES to watch ultimate fighting. This sort of “man up” sermon is typical of Driscoll.
Traditional feminists wouldn’t much like him either, because of his complentarian gender role views, which he basically belives that the wife who works outside the home is sinning. However I think a lot of women who are either jaded or bored with their careers, hear their biological clocks ticking, or just outright don’t want to work outside of the home would love him because he basically validates them by telling them that them being single isn’t their fault, its the fault of the men not being man enough to marry them and be able to take care of their every need (and probably want) as a soul bread winner.
For the life of me I can’t figure out why he’s so popular. He has a history of actions and statements about a mile long that indicate that he’s not so interested in preaching the Gospel through words or deeds but more interested in his own popularity.
@Dex
We’ve come a long way brother.
The comments are majority “well that’s what equality gets you” – hilarious, thanks for the link.
If a few women don’t get the message from that, there’s no hope that they ever will
“Clearly, don’t get married”
Yep, more often, that’s the wise choice.
Dalrock, I thought of you when I read this:
http://metrotimes.com/culture/help-wanted-1.1238667
“Please give my kids Christmas gifts because I completely and utterly messed up their lives.”
Fave comment by mlnoreiga (which I can only assume isn’t THE Manuel Noriega, although he *was* just released from U.S. custody and sent back to Panama):
“I am so sad to read this. I am in a very similar situation, except my 2 beautiful boys are stuck with their horrible father until mommy can get a lawyer to get them back. However, I am not commenting to benifit myself. I want you to know that as a child my family was “adopted” for christmas several years because my mom was in that position with my dad. I am not entirely sure of what orginization it is through, but I know its out there! I will forever be grateful to the people that helped us, because you are right, as children, we dont know about the bills and just how bad the struggle is, all we know is that Santa doesnt leave anyone out! I wish so badly that there was something I could do to help! The only thing I can think of at all, is that I absolutely love to paint, and I would love to do a nice little painting for each one of your children with their name on it, in their most favorite colors! My email address is *******, please contact me if you would like me to do these for them! You’re children truly are blessed to have such an amazing mother!!!!”
@ solomon
Dude, did you just use the feminist strawman on me?
I think Driscoll needs to read this: http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/Do.Women.sin.htm
[D: Great link. I wrote about a related conversation I had with a friend here.]
grerp,
Great link. I like this one best:
“Where did her parents go? Are they estranged? Did they just let her marry this guy at 18?
***
Kpryan
At 18, all Americans are adults and free to enter into any contracts, including that of marriage. It was likely her parents managed to keep her from marrying the meth cook when she was underage, but once she reached the age of majority….”
My question would have been, “Where were her parents during the 4 years she was ‘dating’ him?”
@Dalrock: I don’t know this pastor. I’ve been to Seattle, but my Sunday mornings there involved sleeping off hangovers and hustling to SEATAC. I haven’t been to his church. I never heard of him before a link was posted in another thread about this article. But after the articles, I went to his church’s website.
This is what Driscoll preaches at his church about submission in marriage:
http://marshill.com/media/trial/marriage-and-women
The vid is an hour long, but there are notes below if you don’t have the time. It’s good stuff. mostly.
Here’s what he teaches on Divorce and Remarriage:
http://marshill.com/media/1st-corinthians/divorce-and-remarriage (no vid, scroll down and click transcript to read the whole thing).
And he did this one on Mother’s Day. Also, this church appears to track the divorces in their church. Weren’t you looking for one that did that?
This guy is not the enemy. He’s not just another White Knight. He left some stuff out in that article -important stuff – and from the text of his sermons, he knows it. Maybe he did that for a reason.
My definition of manning up doesn’t involve paying the bills for some slut.
This is a ridiculous feminist caricature, that’s utterly uninformed by the American social science data. In fact it’s even worse than most feminist caricatures. The last phrase is an exaggeration of what happens in only a tiny percentage of American divorces. As well men usually only do that when there are serious problems in the marriage. Women on the other hand do kick their husbands out of the family to go search for new love all the time, although they don’t usually put it that way. Even today that sounds rather bad, so arguments become “emotional abuse” and not feeling it so much anymore becomes “lack of communication”.
@Dex
Don’t tease me. What are their super low divorce rates so I can share it with the world? Every time someone tells me their church tracks divorce they give me a link to a sermon which says divorce is bad. Help me out here please.
Yes, I took exception with his rant against video games on my blog. I couldn’t figure out why he felt such disdain for men enjoying video games.
My husband plays them from time to time and he not an overgrown boy by any stretch.
Jesus’ American Apostle and Pastor Mark Driscoll has been peddling this “man up, single men and marry these old maids who couldn’t find decent men who would stay with them” claptrap for a while now. Incidentally that was when I stopped listening to his sermons. Show me in the Bible where men are obligated to get married as a sign of how “manly” and “responsible” they are– the implication being that these virtues ought to be exemplified by Christian men.
any woman can pretend to be submissive to any man to trick them into marriage, but it usually just leads to the typical cash out divorce
marriage nowadays is a reward to a woman’s ego, men need to stop getting married
CL:
“It’s because people don’t know the difference between dominant and domineering.”
Oh please. Being “dominant” means you can be domineering, if you choose.
You have not negated my point that these words have different meanings and that people often conflate the two. A domineering man is usually thus because he lacks dominance; it is a weak position and unlike what Solomon describes, it is unstable and unsafe.
Greenlander:
Good for you, Brother! I haven’t been to China, but live in a city with a lot of immigrants from East Asia. From what I’ve seen, Chinese women (like most other women) put American girls completely to shame—they are better prospective wives, mothers, and better girlfriends.
Most of my sojourning has been in Latin America, though I’d like to go to Europe too. It really takes American men seeing the real women in other cultures to wake them up to just how bad men really have it here.
Dex:
I actually have the dubious distinction of residing in Seattle. This city is the world leader, per capita, in consumption of prescription psychiatric drugs and in the top ten nationally for the illegal kinds. It totally shows in the attitudes here. We also have, I think, the highest percentage of lesbianism among major US cities. The (non-immigrant) women here are mostly vicious, man-hating Amazons and the males, slobbering manginas like Driscoll.
“f anyone here knows an actual Christian pastor who is serious about biblical marriage and not a feminist wrapped in faux Christianity, please let me know ”
I ran into one that seemed promising in this aspect. But it didn’t take that long to see that it was just as bad as all the other churches I’ve tried. They just hid it better. I enjoyed going to church more before I came to understand that, while Christianity is a great thing, the churches themselves seem to have no function beyond convincing guys to squander their lives for unworthy women.
Dalrock:
“If anyone knows of a pastor who preaches Biblical marriage and not faux Christianity wrapped in feminism, please let me know.”
I would suggest the first Pope, St. Peter. There’s a long passage in his first epistle about the mutual duties of husbands and wives. He speaks there about the polarity between the genders; the relative strengths and weaknesses of both; and how mutuality and respect unite in love to form an archetype of the divine.
Dalrock, try this for an interesting theological perspective:
http://freeinthelordministries.com/Jezebel-WhatisaJezebel.htm
Pity it’s part of an extreme demon-deliverance worldview..
In case anyone is interested in my take on Driscoll’s article:
https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/why-marriage-needs-men/
These “man up” articles all sound the same. How about you get an original thought Driscoll? He thinks he’s edgy for writing about men as if they’re disposable utilities, like all the obedient drones before him. If you were a “real man” Driscoll, you’d write an unapologetic article criticizing modern women and their choices, such as what Dalrock does here. But you don’t have the balls, so you churn out another slobbering, pandering, white knight cliche-fest.
If, as Driscoll cries out, we man up, does that include overthrowing the matriachy? Revoking the vote? Putting women in their place? Abolish no-fault divorce? Men get custody of the children? TURN BACK THE FRICKIN’ CLOCK to where things were civilized??! Yeah, I can ‘man up’ on that!
It’s telling that Driscoll’s article in the WaPo. I bet he peed in his pants when he got the chance, and probably doesn’t even realize he’s just being used as a tool.
“Men are like trucks: they drive straighter with a weighted load.”
As a pickup truck owner, I had to laugh at this statement. First off men = trucks means that men are simply BEASTS OF BURDEN to women, a tool no different than a lawnmower or shovel.
Secondly, men = trucks means put too heavy of a weighted load in or on either and push them constantly without let up and they’ll wear out, fall apart and die. Or at least need plenty of expensive maintenance to keep going.
Lastly, I can’t speak for Dalrock as he’s mentioned he has a pick’em up, but my Chevrolet doesn’t always track straight with a load in the bed. The pastor may want to consider that when you overload a truck or a man, they can’t always respond quickly in an emergency. ;^)
The mangina’s clearly dont understand women want to be dominated, in order to reinforce a dominant personality, you have to be domineering
Confidence and no domineering, & you’re asking for a massive shit load of shit tests
If you want to stop the shit tests, be rock solid & domineering, no way round it, it is the key to pimp smacking a hoe’s hamster to kingdom come
Women only respect whatever triggers their biology, ie women only respect biological triggers, hence their inability to respect beta’s or find them attractive
Women respect confident domineering guys, as women biologically love the possibility of violence & borderline rape
It’s in their gene’s …
@Suz comments “Marry an intelligent woman who *gasp* occasionally has an opinion, lead her and trust her to follow, trust he to make the decisions she’s capable of making well”
You should never accept a womans opinion, unless its an exceptional, even then stand your ground & make out you thought of it … women hate leading, especially intelligent women
Suz obviously has never dated an intelligent hamster driven woman, unless she’s super hot, you pay the price for her insecurities whenever you’re not alpha
Women dont want to lead, especially in a relationship, as they’re clueless about their needs & know they’re emotionally a liability when it comes to rational & logic
In short there is no such thing as being dominant with no domineering, in order to be dominant you have to be domineering, there’s no way round it, sorry mangina’s … you may now wishfully gaze upon your burst bubble …
I’m still awaiting a response from solomon? Am i the only one who see his reply to me as straw-man?
So allow me to finally opine with some scripture that may shed some light on Men’s reluctance to marry into a contemporary life of what’s now indentured servitude:
Proverbs 21:19
“Better to live in a desert than with a quarrelsome and nagging wife.”
Proverbs 19:13
“A foolish child is a father’s ruin, and a quarrelsome wife is like the constant dripping of a leaky roof.”
Proverbs 25:24
“Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife.”
Proverbs 6:26
“For a prostitute can be had for a loaf of bread, but another man’s wife preys on your very life.”
One could easily make the case that these ‘kidult’ man-boys Mark despises so vehemently are actually following biblical scripture to the letter here. Don’t marry the single mommy, don’t marry the shrew, a prostitute would be a better alternative.
@Joshua- I can’t answer the question because I don’t know what you mean. If you can clarify for me, that would be cool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
All i said was the approach in that article feeds into the woman’s frame and the website taken in hand was feminist. Then you responded with a straw man argument, this is typically a strategy employed by feminist woman.
@Solomon
I think joshua means, that site puts all the fault & responsibility on the man
He’s also forgetting a woman has a responsibility to be submissive & take the mans needs & opinions over hers
If a man provides, his needs & opinions come first, this is essentially what takeninhands site teaches
Nope, no straw man argument intended. I just fully disagree with your assertion that http://www.takeninhand.com is a feminist site. Maybe you could clarify why you think that site is feminist. These women are saying that they want to be in patriarchal settings of male authority, and that it is a woman’s ideal state to be under a man’s authority, including discipline and punishment.
How is that feminist?
Maybe we (the manosphere) ought to do some study and discourse on the material on that site, so as to examine and consider what it is, and what it isn’t. I’d love to get a more well-rounded overview on it, from additional members of the manosphere. Maybe that will offer further clarity.
I say everything i have as someone who has read the site quite a bit a while back. The sites whole premise is a woman can do whatever she wants UNTIL she decides to submit. This is really a smoke screen for act like a modern day american woman. Then it puts all of the onus on the man to make her want to commit by being uber super duper alpha(lol). Read all of the articles and comments. it teaches woman to top from the bottom but subtlety. It absolves the woman of any of the responsibility they have in a relationship. i know about BDSM, im into D/s style relationships and am very familiar with the “community” any relationship i have with a woman will be at least DD, if not full on BDSM. if you think the site taken in hand is good i implore you to read all of the articles from the beginning. It teaches woman to be wolves in sheep’s clothing, kinda like Susan Walsh wants to help reformed sluts snag betas. Same theory different group of people.
@knappert- One thing the church today seems to forget as they browbeat men into marriage is that the marriage that the bible advocates (2000 years ago) was probably a real different arrangement than the “marriage” available to American men today.
Another example of why most contemporary churches are not worth the effort when pastors talk about love and acceptance (for the women folk) and repentance and responsibility (for those apparently wayward men).
This is seen in the need for kinship groups for women, but accountability groups for men.
Girls in their twenties are encouraged to explore their options, get a career, ensure they can support themselves. . .
Alas, twenty years of running hamster later, most of the women I knew divorced their husbands for another ride on the carousel.
I am fairly sure this was not the shining examples of salt and light we are encouraged to be. . .
@Joshua- thank you. I will review some of that material with your assertions in mind, see if I get a deeper perspective.
I have come to understand DD to mean “Daddy Dom”… is that right, or do you have a different meaning for it?
I will also clarify that I do not engage in marriage because it directly subverts the authority I require, and indeed, that a relationship requires.
DD is Domestic Discipline.
“I wonder if the proliferation of these “man up” articles has something to do with possible government plans to enact a bachelor tax in the future.”
“I think its coming. With the economy getting progressively worse, all those single mums will have to be paid for somehow. So I can see the state going after single men who are not “pulling their weight” via extra taxation.”
A bachelor tax is a possibility but I think its more than that. Perhaps the “man up” meme is a response to the unintended consequences of feminism. My theory is that the expectation was for men to continue to work 200% even if they are trashed out of their marriages and have their children taken away. In fact, you need most men to work 200% to support civilization and a nation. For the moment, we’re not at a tipping – YET. The “man up” meme might be an attempt to reverse the flow.
Regarding pastors, you’ve all heard of Gillis Triplett, no?
http://www.gillistriplett.com/manhood/articles/modern.html
Here’s some choice excerpts:
“Many of today’s women have had sex with Tom, Dick, Harry, Skeet and Pimp Daddy. They are depressed, confused, angry at their ex’s, in need of crises counseling and have multiple children by multiple men. They are on Prozac, have had one or more abortions, crave therapy and are stressed out. They have chosen men who are jerks and have been dumped, played, pimped, tricked and dismissed. Now they are mad at God, bitter towards all men and are going off!
These women not only have bizarre beliefs about men, love, sex and matrimony, they also harbor alarming issues that make them unsuitable mates for any good man. Forget baggage, these females bring the entire store into a relationship or marriage. And it doesn’t matter if they attend church or not. Same story… lost in space! The question begs, “Have modern day women lost their minds?” Keep reading brethren…”
[D: I haven’t. Great quote. I’ll have to check him out some time.]
Not very well, but Mr. Driscoll obfuscated his desire to bone said old maid. If he had not said such things in an article, but out loud, his wife would have been pissed. In essence what he is very clearly saying is “This chick is smoking hot (for her age) and I’de hit it, but I have this old wrinkly fat broad here that I committed to”.
As one can easily find out for oneself, Mark Driscoll’s wife is quite conventionally attractive. The man is not the sort of person he is being characterized as being. But of course, bothering to find out would take away from the joy of attacking a fictional strawpastor.
While this article Pastor Driscoll wrote is terrible, I want to say that I am very familiar with his books and I’ve listened to a great deal of his sermons, and he is an excellent pastor, although clearly not perfect. His book on pornography and his sermons on finding a wife I would actually recommend to young men, in addition to blogs such as this one. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. His sermons on Revelation, doctrine and other subjects are also great. He’s a good guy, and he’s one of the few masculine pastors who believes in letting men be men. He doesn’t take himself too seriously, and I think Dalrock would actually find him quite agreeable and good company.
A Lady
I’ve gone back and re read both of your comments here, and I’m not clear on what your disagreement is. He wrote an op ed piece and I responded. Which of my points in the post do you take issue with?
Bob,
I take it you are saying he isn’t always this ridiculous. I’ll stipulate that for sake of argument since I don’t have the background information you do, but this is what he wrote when given space in the Washington Post. He had a national spotlight and this is what came out. It is profoundly ridiculous, starting with the opening paragraph about the career gal slut no one married. If he has printed a retraction (perhaps due to a temporary bout of insanity?) I’d be open to reconsidering my opinion of him. Otherwise, it sounds like he was pretty good until he lost it entirely. I have sympathy for him if that is true, but if he insists on being foolish in the national media what else am I to do but point it out?
@ Dalrock-“I have sympathy for him if that is true, but if he insists on being foolish in the national media what else am I to do but point it out?”
Your supposed to know not all pastors are like that. If you took the time to get to know the real him you would know what he really meant and how he really feels.
/sarcasm
“Rmaxd: In short there is no such thing as being dominant with no domineering, in order to be dominant you have to be domineering…”
This is true but it should be qualified. A man must be domineering to attain dominance, and to maintain it when it’s threatened. To be domineering when there’s NO threat to one’s dominance, serves little purpose. If a woman so much as hints at a shit test, that’s when you bring on the domineering behavior. And yes, most women need frequent reminders. However if you are domineering when your dominance is well established and not under threat, it suggests that you are afraid and insecure in your dominance. That invites a challenge. Unnecessary domineering is participating in a vicious circle of escalating challenges and responding takedowns. Hell of a way to live, especially if you have the power to reign in peace.
“You should never accept a womans opinion, unless its an exceptional, even then stand your ground & make out you thought of it … women hate leading, especially intelligent women.”
I disagree with this one. This tactic can backfire because intelligent women can see right through it, and not much scares a woman more than the realization that she might be “following” a fraudulent leader. Because you’re right – we do hate leading. (Seriously, have you ever had to pretend you’re dumber than your boss, so he can feel good about coming up with the ideas you just gave him?) A good leader start out by choosing good subordinates. He solicits their opinions (based on their expertise and experience) he considers the merit of those opinions, and HE decides whether or not to incorporate them into his plans. This process doesn’t diminish a leader’s authority in the least. In fact it shows he has the brains to make the best decision possible, which earns even more respect, and confidence in him, from his followers. A woman with an opinion is not by definition a usurper. Many submissive women offer useful opinions which enhance their husband’s dominance, not challenge it.
You SERIOUSLY think Driscoll’s a feminist. LMAO, THAT’LL be the day. He’s turned himself blue in macho speeches, making fun of effeminate Christianity and even saying a real man would burn Thomas Kinkade paintings. Honestly Dalrock, have you ever really looked at the man? I’m familiar with his normal focus, and this article is refreshingly different! Please, look at John Piper, Michael Pearl, Max Lucado, John Eldredge, and the author of “The Marketing of Evil”. There are many masculine pastors.
“Women are DESIGNED to submit”
Yes, that’s just our essence, isn’t it? Bull.
@ jennifer
if women weren’t designed to submit they certainly have evolved too.
Dominant: a : commanding, controlling, or prevailing over all others b : very important, powerful, or successful
2: overlooking and commanding from a superior position
Domineering: 1. to rule arbitrarily or despotically; tyrannize.
2. to tower; to tower over or above: The castle domineers the town.
Dominant does not need to be domineering. Let’s not muddy definitions; it doesn’t further the discussion in a meaningful way.
Jennifer
I’ll add you to the list, and make this an open offer to everyone who feels the same. He wrote a profoundly foolish Op Ed piece. I explained why it was foolish in great detail. No one has yet explained where my analysis of his piece is wrong. You are defending him as a man and ignoring what he wrote and my response. “I really really like him” doesn’t move the discussion forward. It is simply stating an opinion. Please quote the portion of the post you disagree with and then explain to me why I’m wrong.
I get that you like this guy, and that he is known for his swagger. But his ideas, at least what he wrote in his Op Ed piece, are extremely foolish and rooted in the prevailing feminist culture. This is why his piece sounds almost identical to the ones by Nance, Hymowitz, and Bennett. That would make him a fool carrying feminist water with swagger, but I don’t see where the swagger helps much there. But please, quote the parts of my post which you think are wrong and explain my error. Or, if you have nothing to add, tell me again how wrong I am about him and how if I only really knew him his foolish Op Ed piece would suddenly seem unimportant. Your call.
Jennifer, what’s pathetic about Driscoll is that he thinks he’s a hard-core chauvinist manly-man, (and he pisses off women everywhere he goes) but all that “macho” talk is pure self-serving hypocrisy. He claims to despise feminist ideals, yet here he is pandering to them. You find it “refreshing?” Why because this week BS suits your agenda better than last week’s BS?
And yes, we ARE designed to submit. That’s not a theory, it’s biology. If you bother to look more than 50 years into the past, it’s a truth older than any religion.
Thank you CL.
@Jennifer
Are you the same Jennifer who writes on Married Man Sex Life or Athol Kay or whatever it is called?
LOL That’s one theory, Joshua.
Suz, simmer down; I love your assumptions about me. I find him holding men accountable refreshing from his usual stuff, and the usual attitude of those who nonstoppingly spout, “Women submit!” I suppose non-whites were “naturally” submissive too? I believe wives should submit, not that one sex was made to dominate the other, whether you see the definition of dominate as being sweet and beneficial or dark and dangerous.
Dalrock, lol, that’s the thing: I don’t like him at all, most of the time, because of the macho stuff. You are correct that both sides must be taken into account, but perhaps he’s simply addressing the other side of the problem, which some men are. Plus, there are many speakers who focus more on addressing their own sex than the opposite; you should see Debi Pearl, some have accused her of being a woman-hater. And I have not seen any of the regulars here criticize Laura Grace for only discussing women’s possible and actual faults in just about every subject. This, basically, is what I disagree with in your post: you assume that, by only addressing the faults of those in his own sex, Driscoll is a weak pro-feminism man. Well, I can say he’s not. You’re also making very extreme and harsh assumptions about that woman in the article, with no idea about whether she’s engaged in constant fornication.
“smart, funny, interesting, successful, attractive, kind”
No way are these uniquely masculine traits.
YBM-I haven’t been on Athol Kay’s site for months. I wrote there under “Jennifer 6”. His wife is also named Jennifer.
See you folks around, signing out. Nagged to get offline, and have had my say.
@Dalrock – I agree with what you said and I’m glad you wrote this article pointing out what is wrong with what Driscoll wrote. The article was hard for me to read because what he wrote was truly cringe worthy. However, he is, on the whole, a good pastor. He is usually much better than this. I agree with his assessment that most young men need to find a wife, and how he tells the many single men at his church to go find one, but he simply fails to address the women, he does not fully understand the issue, and he recommends the wrong kinds of women to men (one sermon he even urged the men to consider dating the single moms at his church…). On the whole, he also provides good advice to men and his book on pornography (which he gives away free) has helped many struggling men.
I hope someone knowledgeable gets in contact with him soon and helps him wisen up.
BTW he does have a sermon for young women and it is good. You can find it on YouTube or on his church’s iPhone app. Right now he’s doing a sermon series called “Real Marriage” and part 1 is up there. I’ll listen to it and get back here with a little review and let you know what he tells men and women.
Oh God now I remember you Jennifer.
Sound the horn, TFH is on his way!
BTW Dalrock consider this review of his book on the subject: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/13/mark-driscoll-s-sex-manual-real-marriage-scandalizes-evangelicals.html
“A quick review of Driscoll’s greatest hits: Stay-at-home dads are “worse than unbelievers.” James Cameron’s Avatar is “the most demonic, satanic film” he’s ever seen. A wife should keep herself “sexually available” to her husband and, if she believes the Bible, better be giving him frequent blowjobs. “Effeminate” church musicians should be mocked on Facebook. Abstaining from alcohol can be a “sin.” The church has turned Jesus into a “a Richard Simmons, hippie, queer Christ,” when he’s actually a “prize fighter” who is “coming back looking for blood.” The Bible says women can’t have leadership positions in church because they’re “more gullible and easier to deceive than men….'”
“you assume that, by only addressing the faults of those in his own sex, Driscoll is a weak pro-feminism man.”
You completely missed the point. Nobody objects to the idea of Driscoll holding men’s feet to the fire. The objection is that he’s exhorting men to sacrifice themselves to a losing proposition, by marrying women whose independence (at the very least) is deeply ingrained, women who are far more likely than not, to be unable (or unwilling) to become good wives and supportive partners. He’s telling men to ignore reality and take a chance – it’s their duty to risk everything on a bad bet.
Full stop here people. From the article Bob linked too.
“Evangelicals have heard this stuff before from Driscoll, but the first chapter of Real Marriage, is something different, and it’s creeping nearly everyone out. It deals with the rocky early years of the Driscoll marriage, including premarital infidelity and dealing with past sexual abuse. Though many have praised the Driscolls for their brutal honesty about their struggles, actually reading about them can be cringe-inducing. At best it’s extreme oversharing, and at worst some see it as more evidence of Mark’s pervasive obsession with sex and a degrading view of women. He recalls having a dream, shortly before Grace gave birth to the couple’s first child, in which he “saw in painful detail Grace sinning sexually during a senior trip she took after high school when we had just started dating.” He awoke, threw up, and asked her if it was true. She confessed, and he was “shell-shocked. Had I known about this sin, I would not have married her.””
No wonder hes advising men to marry used up sluts. He did.
I would not say he married a used up slut at all. Driscoll is definitely not innocent himself prior to marriage. At any rate, she is an excellent wife and she is one of the few women out there in the church exhorting other women to submit to their husbands. She is a truly repentant, Godly woman despite her imperfection. I’m kind of offended that you would call her that because like most human beings, man or woman, in the West, they have an imperfect sexual past. Plus, she was very young when she married Mark.
@Jennifer
Good thing I didn’t write that those were uniquely masculine traits. The sentence you pulled that from is:
Do you understand that you don’t get to make up what you think I wrote and then prove that wrong? I’m not saying I can’t be wrong. I’m saying stop the BS. It is extremely tedious. It makes it difficult for me to take anyone who does this seriously. Please stop. Again, please quote where I am wrong and explain it to me. I’m losing patience with this having repeated it three times in this thread alone.
Driscoll’s message to music:
@Jennifer
Please:
1) Read the post.
2) Find the part where you think I was wrong.
3) Quote that part (not just a few words, but the specific sentence or group of sentences you disagree with).
4) Go back to step 3. Make sure you didn’t actually pull a few words out of a sentence, or summarize what you thought I wrote. Make sure you quoted the actual sentence or sentences. Most browsers support copy/paste. I highly recommend using it for accuracy.
5) Explain why you think I’m wrong.
He said she was in her 40s, successful, and never married. That says career woman. If she is a virgin he left that part out. So either this isn’t important to him when discussing a woman’s marriage worthiness, or she isn’t. I have no idea if she engaged in constant fornication. He didn’t think that was worth discussing. Perhaps she only engaged in it periodically over the more than twenty years she has been of marriageable age. Does it matter? He is holding her out as an example of men failing women by not manning up and marrying them. In fact, this is the only specific woman he offers as an example in the entire Op Ed piece. She is the foundation of his argument that men aren’t marrying when they should. If you agree that men have a duty to marry aging career women whose chastity is at the very least in question, please make that case.
@ Bob
Hes an evangelical christian minister. In his world any woman not a virgin when married is a used up slut. As far as Driscoll not being perfect, that is false equivalency and i wont have it. His words were what she did made him sick to the point of throwing up. Do you really think that doesn’t effect him still to this day? You have no idea whether she is truly repentant or not. As far as her being young when she married her husband, what does that have to do with a senior trip fling WHILE THEY WERE DATING. Also what kind of past does he have if they went to high school together and starting dating senior yr?
jenny is feeling some tingles for mister alpha minister it seems
don’t even acknowledge his flaws, play up his apparently strengths, defend him to the death no matter how obviously he doesn’t deserve it
driscoll carries the stench of spoiled tuna around him
@Joshua – You are free to define what a slut is so I won’t argue with that, although I disagree, because its an objective thing. By your definition, she is probably a slut. But my point was that she wasn’t some spinsterish career chick or carousel rider. She got it together and turned out to be a great wife according to Mark and those who know her, and I would be glad to have a wife like her. If you want to point fingers and sling condemnation, fine, but you don’t know those people and you sound like a jackass when you call Marks wife a used up slut based on what she did over 2 decades ago and what she has been forgiven for by God and her husband. I am curious – do you believe men are used up cads if they fornicate, even once?
If Pastor Driscoll wants to know why there are empty pews in his church, has to look no further than the mirror.
Bob, you miss the point. I don’t think anyone who has one partner is a used up slut. but your being intentionally dense so im just gonna back away slowly now.
I’m being serious. If you define someone who has more than 1 sex partner as a used up slut then damnit I’m a used up slut too and I’m a guy. I think your definition is way too narrow and you should consider Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. Christians aren’t perfect human beings and they commit sexual sins. You’re calling a woman whose probably done more for the Kingdom of God than you ever will and actually tells women to submit to their husbands leadership a used up slut based on 1 undefined act of cheating over 2 decades ago when she was 17. She wasn’t even a Christian then and neither was Mark. Come on.
Having associated with conservative evangelical and conservative Reformed Christians (i.e. Driscoll’s brand of Christian) for many years, I am stymied that people here are finding it hard to believe that a 40 year old woman with a career could also be a virgin. “No hanky-panky” before marriage is a cardinal rule in this religion and there are women who take their religion extremely seriously. I have known 35-, 38-, 40- year old women who were virgins. They are not an extinct species. They have careers because if they did not, they would be living off of their parents’ money or charity. To assume that their single state is a result of whoreish behavior certainly seems like a stretch.
To assume that their single state is a result of whoreish behavior certainly seems like a stretch.
Dalrock can speak for himself, but it does seem a little odd that Driscoll failed to mention that she was a virgin. It’s not unreasonable to interpret his silence on the matter as indicating that she is not. It might be a mistake, but it’s not unreasonable.
What I was trying to say is that in that culture and mindset, it would be assumed, it would go without saying, that a good church-going lady was a virgin. I think Driscoll would not pick a woman with a wild past to make the point he was trying to make. Perhaps for a secular audience, he should not have left her purity in doubt in any way but then again, the mention of her virginity might not have made it to print in this article.
Bob, news flash men and women are different. it has not been proven that previous partners for males affect marriage. For women it does. its that simple. No as a man YOU are not used up. But a woman is. Were not equal, more than one sexual partner damages woman and everyone after the 2nd damages her more. This has been proven. Scientifically proven. Anecdotally proven. men and women are not the same, therefore you cannot apply the same criteria to them. I say all of this from a secular view point.
If you are christian its a whole different ball game. By the way she didn’t confess(repent) she got caught.
No, you’d be wrong in this particular instance Mellie. Driscoll’s church did have a stripper as one of the earliest members and it used to be played up quite a bit in the church’s history, by Driscoll not least. So I do not think in this particular context that the woman used for Driscoll’s example was a virgin, though certainly none of us can know. But the demographics of that church are not such that it is full of lifelong grew up in the church ladies doing mission work (although yes, it has some of those as well)– it is well known instead for being full of good looking adult converts. They aren’t all that is in that church, but the disproportion in regards to the church Driscoll preaches at is well known.
This is a church known to have a ‘cussin’ pastor’ and again, a stripper-founder. Not quite the reputation of your usual Reformed church.
@Mellie,
The whole article is absurd, but you argue I should assume something he left out isn’t absurd. I don’t see why you would expect this. But even if we stipulated that she was in fact a forty something career woman virgin, are you honestly saying she is proof that men won’t marry, and not far more likely a case of a woman who made very poor choices if her goal in life was to marry? Because this is what Driscoll is founding his argument on.
Kickin that ass Dalrock. These christian conservative men are such suplicating losers. I guess this is what pleasing to man and not pleasing to God looks like in practice. It is also very interesting how foolish they look to one on the “red pill”. And the irrational blue pillers in complete denial trying to keep a lie alive that has become the essence of their being. With out the lie their lives become completely void.
Pingback: Captain and First Officer | Air & Space
I’d ask the good Pastor this: Why would a bicycle need a license to own a pet halibut?
I don’t know Mark Driscoll and perhaps he is 100% correct in everything else he says, but the Bible says that it is better for a man to remain unmarried, if he is able to abstain (1 Corinthians 7).
Quoting from Driscoll’s article: “Statistically, the women are more likely than the men to attend college, be working a career track job, and attend church.
What are the guys doing? Often, they’re acting like boys who can shave, getting drunk, watching porn, attending sporting events, and treating responsibility like Superman does green kryptonite.
So, many women are waiting longer to marry.”
This paints a pretty clear picture: women are responsible, while men are not. That is the crux of the article. It’s this kind of anti-men diatribe that keeps men single. It’s also interesting that he only quoted half of one of the verses from the book of Genesis in the Bible. Here is the whole verse:
The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
When God created women he created them to be man’s helpers. I have to admit, women make awesome supporters and nurturers. I’ve had more female than male friends throughout my adult life and there is something about women that you don’t get from guys. Men may excel in their fields more often, die for causes more often, and so on, but women have it nailed when it comes to being there as a supporting lover. It’s such a shame so many have relinquished this natural role for the ill-fitting role of . . .
[Driscoll:] “Ladies, are you part of the problem? Are you the mom or girlfriend letting a boy who can shave live at your house eating your food and mooching off your hard work?”
. . . being the person who calls the shots at home.
Hey guys, come on, enough with the slut shaming! 13 year-old girl knows what’s up!
@Joshua – It is true that promiscuity affects women differently, but it doesn’t affect all women the same. And the fact is, Grace has been a good wife, so obviously despite her imperfection she has managed just fine, and has not behaved as if she’s “used up.” You may or may not believe this depending on your beliefs, but she was caught because God gave Mark a vision of what happened and through the vision God forced her to confess and she repented. God didn’t then tell him to divorce her – He strengthened the relationship in the long run by exposing secrets which can be barriers to growing love and intimacy. Mind you, God outed her secret before she bore her first child, and she’s had 5 altogether, so Mark has obviously gotten over it.
I went to a church for many years that was run by a pastor who was a virgin when he married his wife who had an extensive sexual history. They had at least 5 kids together and I don’t know of a stronger marriage than theirs. My point is, not all women are irreparably ruined or “used up” after sinning sexually. God does heal women like that if they repent.
Additionally, just because it affects men differently, it doesn’t mean that it does not affect men at all. It affects them in a negative way as well. A man who has sex outside of marriage tends to chase sex for a feeling or a form of high, and tends to be more focused on the act of sex itself than the person. They are more likely to develop sex addictions, have affairs, watch pornography, etc. Their mind imprints on the sex rather than the girl, because the sex was far outside a real commitment. Just as men can overcome these issues, women can overcome theirs, and it’s not right to bash one gender for promiscuity and not the other. The more sex partners a man has, the less healthy it is for him too, even if it is not related to oxytocin levels as it is for females. Sex is meant to bind people in commitment and when it’s divorced from commitment is harms bother genders just as drastically, albeit differently.
Why would a bicycle need a license to own a pet halibut?
I promise you, there is no such thing as a fish license.
Bob how old are you? Your assuming facts not in evidence, you assume driscolls wife has been a good wife, you cant know that. Same for your other pastor example. You opinion is based on facts not in evidence. mine are based entirely on the evidence.
“You may or may not believe this depending on your beliefs, but she was caught because God gave Mark a vision of what happened and through the vision God forced her to confess and she repented.”
Or she lied for as long as she could because even after their marriage she didn’t value him enough to tell him the truth. She only confessed after she was pregnant. Thereby ensuring her provider. He had no choice in the matter. Was he really going to leave his pregnant wife? I honestly don’t know a many alive who would. he would suck it up and “forgive” which brings me back to my entire point. he can say he has forgiven her and she can say she has repented. BUT WE STILL DO NOT KNOW HOW IT IS EMOTIONALLY AFFECTING HIM TO THIS DAY. Why is it that Socons cant fucking hold women responsible for this shit they do? /rhetorical question
“The more sex partners a man has, the less healthy it is for him too”
Were not talking about whats healthy for the individual were talking about whats healthy for the marriage. Because a healthy marriage is a healthy household for raising children. A man isn’t required to emotionally bond with a woman to fulfill his roles and duties as husband. A woman is, because we’ve seen the EPL when they don’t.
“Sex is meant to bind people in commitment and when it’s divorced from commitment is harms bother genders just as drastically, albeit differently.”
No it doesn’t. Its laughable that you think that. I will retract this statement if you can prove yours.
Escoffier can you please make a post so we know your not Bob? I mean this so-con rhetoric is ludicrous.
Joshua says:
January 16, 2012 at 6:41 pm
That took several minutes of laughing about NAPALT, until I read your second post.
Bob says:
January 16, 2012 at 7:41 pm
So Driscoll’s writing, other than when he is selling his soul to the MSM and feminism, is good? That’s not saying anything good about the man.
@ Joshua
Do some reading on pair-bonding and oxytocin.
@Legion – He’s not selling his soul to the MSM and feminism. He simply is not completely knowledgeable about what he is writing on. He has regularly said things that drive feminists insane, and his church and ministry have thrived because it is often masculine unlike so many other churches and ministries and he has done very well with the 18-30 year old male demographic. The church as a whole has really failed that demographic. Also, this article was directed to men. It’s for men and it’s not supposed to address women. Perhaps he will address them another time, but if you actually listen to what he’s told women, you’d see why it ticks feminist off. You cannot find a perfect pastor, you’re dealing with humans, but Mark is one of the best around and he did make some legitimate points in his article. Just because young men are surrounded by ho’s, doesn’t mean they should squander their time and engage in sinful activities like pornography. There are many ways for a young man to find a good wife, from dating sites to searching abroad. I want to see Christian men find excellent wives, and not “GTOW,” because we need them to raise Godly men and women. Mark feels similarly but he is not as enlightened as to the pitfalls of the feminist system and obviously thinks women too innocent. You figure his experience with his wife’s lie would at least clue him in a bit…
At any rate, I am not defending Mark’s piece. I am just defending Mark’s ministry because I am very familiar with it and have benefited greatly from it. No reason to freak out or call his wife names like some people have.
BTW – his newest sermon on marriage is not nearly as bad as this article was, and his new book on marriage is sheer horror for any feminist.
Thanks for posting, Bob. It’s appreciated.
Having spent twenty years in evangelical churches, the capacity for female hypocrisy never lost the capacity to surprise.
I saw the same pattern over and over. Sweet church girl gets bored with delta/gamma church guys and goes out seeking alpha. After being burned by a turn or two on the carousel, if she returned to a church it was with increasing baggage in tow.
The Driscoll’s of this world never understood why that was so unattractive to single men in the church. Man up, they were told. Marry those recycled virgins and single mothers so you can raise another man’s bastard spawn in the process.
Any woman who threw away her virginity in serial monogamous fervour was not to be trusted.
And I will add that having multiple children with any women is not evidence of a solid relationship. Any other conclusion is spurious, at best.
Bob: I am with Dalrock here (as always, apart from his truck fetish). Driscoll had a chance of spreading his message in a widely circulated media, and this is what he wrote. What he wrote must be able to stand on its own, since he cannot be sure to be given the opportunity to expand and/or retract. And on its own this op-ed is misandric, female pedestalizing crap.
When you marry a slut there’s an excellent chance that at least one of your kids will not be yours. I hope all those good little christian boys who marry born again sluts remember to DNA test.
All the shaming in the world is not going to change young men’s view of modern marriage. We know it’s a raw deal and only the stupid and fool hearty will enter into it. The only way to fix the problem is by reforming women, not men.
I don’t disagree with you Lavazza, again, I’m just saying his ministry is good. As I mentioned, I found this piece by Driscoll hard to read and I’m glad Dalrock wrote his article on it. Dalrocks article will be a solid tool for explaining to my fellow Christian men why you need to beware even a great pastor’s advice on “manning up” and marriage.
I think this is the pastoral version of natural vs artificial alpha. The pastor who marries a girl who genuinely reforms or is very young or both is not really able to understand the field other guys have to play on. As I already noted, Driscoll’s wife has been put through quite a lot in terms of supporting him financially, sexually, emotionally and spiritually (all information available in online sermons) which is not something that would be the case if he were as weak as he is claimed to be here. But because he and other manly men do have wives who submit gratefully and cheerfully, they don’t really comprehend the seismic shifts in the dynamics between men and women, even Christian men and women, and especially high SMV men and women.
And, she’s not alone. For the first time in the America’s history there are more single adults than married. Statistically, the women are more likely than the men to attend college, be working a career track job, and attend church.
“What are the guys doing? Often, they’re acting like boys who can shave, getting drunk, watching porn, attending sporting events, and treating responsibility like Superman does green kryptonite.”
this is the one that toasted my biskits
while Pastor Driscoll was busy preening before his “above average looking” largely female parishioners antecedent to tithe time, his wonderful Career Women were being adored through high school and scholarshipped through college, while those Irresponsible Males were being drugged, degraded, de-fathered, and un-scholarshipped right outta femucation
after that, “pastor” driscoll’s girls were legally, widely, and massively advantaged in hiring and promotion, especially in the public sector
those Irresponsible Males were being passed-over for jobs, and driven from the ones they had by incrementally fem-tyrannical work environments
then, as with so many other “pastors” and “ministers” in america, driscoll covers up the complicity of both church and state in creating, supporting, and enforcing such anti-biblical and anti-christian apartheid against boys and men — “statistics” show this, doncha know? it all just happened Magically, mostly because males didn’t Man Up, of course….
likewise, he has NO excuse parading his Altar Alphaness in a feminist rag like the Wa-po — one of the most notorious intelligence-assets in planetary media; run by former-spook feminist Katherine Graham, now published by current-spook feminist Katharine Weymouth
like so many other western men who “lead” churches, driscoll, through his pride and vanity, got played by babylon
he imagines himself authorized to preach the Word of our holy God, but he is without anointing
talk about acting like “boys who can shave” there, Mark…. maybe you need to take a closer look in the mirror
What is depressing from this article and the comments is that even the cultural/religious leaders who are considered to be more sympathetic to men still have all their most difficult and challenging work in front of them in terms of understanding the current situation and revising their message accordingly.
What will it take for them to realise the current course most probably leads to a dead end?
BTW. Thanks Dalrock. I really appreciate this blog. I find it a great source of consolidated data and arguments useful to combat the occasional shaming tactics I receive, which are now dwindling in frequency thankfully. I only wish it was around 20 years ago!
[D: Thanks! Welcome to the blog.]
Bob: Great! We will see how this plays out.
I’ve listened to a lot of Mark Driscoll’s sermons– so a few mitigating statements here:
1) Mark Driscoll has said many times that his target market is young men. The typical parish target market is mothers and children. He speaks specifically to men. The women are welcome to listen and join but they are not the focus of his ministry. So someone can argue with his message, but not his choice of target market.
2) In speaking to men, he’s aiming at some that are playing the fool. This does not mean that he gives women a pass for their behavior. He has specifically addressed men many times who are having premarital sex. He is correct to be doing this. Again, this does not mean that he has excused women’s promiscuity.
3) I’ve listened to the few sermons he has directed specifically toward women. He does not mince words in telling them that they ought not to be riding the carousel and that being career oriented will drive off a lot of men.
Now for the aggravating statements:
1) He has more than once told men that they ought to consider marrying women with a promiscuous past– and in particular single moms. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is speaking of repentant women.
2) Even with those statements, he claims that he married a virgin.
3) He has claimed that his church has mostly people who have turned to Christ after a wild past. he addresses couples that are living together time and time again. I would assume from this statement in conjunction with the others that there probably aren’t many virgins in his church.
Some issues that a pastor might face:
1) What does one do with a repentant woman with a promiscuous past? It cannot be erased nor undone.
2) How does a pastor create a concrete social distinction between repentance after promiscuity and the seeming condoning of sexual promiscuity?
3) How does a pastor challenge men in specific to a better spiritual life and preparation for marriage in legal conditions which work against them in the marriage market?
4) How does a pastor who has been married for some time and has no vested interest in the modern marriage market get an on the ground view of what it is like– especially since its dysfunction has increased exponentially in the last few years?
My conclusions:
1) His telling men to marry promiscuous women should be ignored. The men in the congregation ought to have enough gumption to discount nonsense. No pastor is perfect but this guy is better than most. If you know of a better pastor
2) He is doing right by making his target market men and is correct in calling them out if they play the fool.
3) He is doing right in trying to get women to be truly repentant Christians, get them cleaned up the best he can, and get them on the marriage market. Let’s face it– any improvement over a typical promiscuous lifestyle is good. Note: this idea doesn’t float outside of Christianity. If you aren’t Christian, discount it at your leisure.
4) He is one of three pastors I have ever seen who are not effeminate (the others being E.V. Hill who is deceased and Fr. Stavros Akotirianakis in Florida). If you know of any better, list their names in the comments. You can’t beat something with nothing.
5) Although there is tons of railing against women who have climbed off the carousel on the internet, in real life I’ve seen that people who marry tend to have a similar sexual past with the man having one a little bit more extensive. Promiscuous people tend to marry promiscuous people and virgins tend to end up with virgins or pretty close to it. Internet one-offs discounted, this is what I’ve seen in real life.
I had a little fun over the weekend, and this thread is not, I think, an inapproriate place to share it:
I noticed that I had a new Twitter follower; a new-made off-line local Introduction Agency, so I went to its website: It is for successful hetero-sexual men and women aged between 30 and 65. I tweeted back in terms that, the only women they would have on their books would be Unwed Mothers, Multiple Divorcees and Cat-Herders. I continued, by pointing out that these women would be too old, and concluded by suggesting that it was an absurd idea that I should want to pay to be introduced to such women – all this in 140 characters or less!
I received a reply from the proprietor of the agency (whose web-site photo was a naked head and shoulders shot of a woman in her mid forties). Hi Opus, it began. It then suggested that I had an old fashioned view of agencies, though I don’t think that I made any view that I might have on agencies known but merely expressed my views as to their female members. She concluded that there were women on her books who would (note the mixed metaphor) ‘blow my socks off’. I wondered if the word ‘blow’ was important, and I suspected that the person she had in mind was herself. I tweeted back asking for more details as to this person – but so far she has not taken the bait. Frankly, the agency strikes me as effectively a form of pimping of these women.
I have never heard of an Intorduction Agency for Teenagers or Twenty-Somethings, and thus conclude that the Agencies prey on human misery, being the Oxfam Shop (Trans: Bargain Basement Store) of Romance. If these Agencies were really about Marriage rather than Hook-Ups then they would surely be more like the Indian System of Arranged Marriages – but they are not.
I don’t believe he has the right to define playing the fool unless he addresses the reasons why those men might think that not hitching up to some old slut / super annuated career girl / self-opinionated shrew is a sensible course.
As with all socons, he is big on reality-lite, or paleo-we’d like to think this is how things worked (even though men were treated as pack animals then too, but just treated a bit better when they got back to the stables).
Fortunately, part of feminism has been the dismantling of the belief in hierarchy (possibly the one good bit). Just because he dresses up and thumps an old book, doesn’t give him credibilty in the real world.
I happen to think these guys get to make their own decisions, too bad if that doesn’t work for society (women), perhaps society should start thinking of da menz?
@Dalrock
Good replies to Jennifer et al. The creation of YOUR point by her, then her refutation of her made up version of your point is a maddening waste of your time. Im frankly shocked you dont get more of that, its ubiquitous on faith based forums, and it derails all worthwhile topics.
I noticed that about Mark Driscoll’s sermons, he never seems to call out women – this was over a year ago, when a guy I knew following his life template (getting married in 20’s, only career option is in the ministry, and then calling other men to “don’t be a loser, don’t marry a woman who is a loser, be a Christian, but never make women mad” was the gist of what he said.
Glad to see that Churchianity is being taken apart.
Too bad that guys with a past like Driscoll are given a free pass … we encourage bad behaviour when we hold up as models, those who have had a wild past and then “repent”.
Why don’t we hold up those who went through life honestly and with restraint?
Probably because it would interfere with the message that we are all miserable sinners unable to control our desires. And challenge the priestly hierarchy (Augustus is a good example of the kind of guy with a wild past that is remembered centuries later).
Does Mark Driscoll have anything in his sermons about Catholic women who believe in abortion? Because there sure are a heck of a lot of them in University.
They look you down the nose and proclaim their divine belief, while slutting around and killing babies.
I think I like Pastor Gillis Triplett. Interesting man with a no holds barred approach to modern gender relationships. If I lived in ATL, I’d visit his church.
“Man up” to me invokes images of things like being in a Ranger batt or some other exclusively masculine pursuit. Lets’s face it, if a chick can do it, is it really worth doing? And chicks can marry. I fail to see how getting married is “maning up”.
“After my wife Grace and I spent some time with the woman from our church, we could not fathom why no one had married her.”
I bet the men who dated her found plenty
“TheSolomonPress.com says:
January 16, 2012 at 12:03 pm
D/s is actually fully confirmed and supported scripturally. It’s not about whips and chains, at it’s heart. The parallels between King/subject, Man/bride, parent/child, Authority and structure, as the Word teaches is it, is, in fact, the direct basis for my theory.
The God of Israel is a God of order, my friend. I think He is quite clear about D/s in scripture.”
That the best thing I’ve read in a long, long time. More Biblical then most preachers I’ve heard
If anyone here knows an actual Christian pastor who is serious about biblical marriage and not a feminist wrapped in faux Christianity, please let me know and we can ask him what he would say. In the meantime I’ll close by posing Driscoll’s own question back at him:
Are you a fool? Was your father a fool? When will the folly stop?
Pastor of 4000 person church from Leesburg VA who is extremely serious about marriage and the roles in marriage. http://cornerstonechapel.net/contentPages/about/staffDetail/Gary-Hamrick2.htm
I would be very interested in reading his response.
Pingback: Pastor Mark Driscoll is a fraud « Patriactionary
@Dalrock –I don’t think the woman he chose as an example, be she the sister of the Virgin Mary or be she a stripper who moonlights as a whore, is the proof that men won’t marry. I agree that the message of “just man up and marry” is absurd. However, I disagree that the woman in question and her compatriots have made poor choices that have resulted in their perpetual single status. They made necessary career choices to support themselves. Blaming either sex is counterproductive, I think.
If anything is to “blame”, I would look at the church culture itself. Driscoll is missing the opportunity to look at larger cultural factors and to examine his beliefs about why men (and women) “should” marry. Listening to his interviews with Doug Wilson, one can tell that Driscoll delights in playing matchmaker. Even God himself apparently does not indulge in that pastime. I think that the church should get out of the business of legislating marriage (sex). How are they to know who should marry and who should take Paul’s advice, referenced by a previous comment, to stay single?
+1, Double E.
I’ve long thought that there can be no such thing as a “reformed slut” without faith. Outside faith, once a slut, always a slut, even if she stops sleeping around.
With faith, can a slut reform? Yes. It’s very difficult and takes a lot of time and effort, but it can be done. Most choose not to do the work required. Some are constitutionally incapable of doing the work required.
Faith is required because only faith can mute the hamster’s rationalization of past promiscuity. (Note I said the hamster is muted, not comatose or killed.) A truly reformed slut still will not be acceptable for marriage to most men. By the time she reforms, she is usually too old to bear children, probably has fertility problems and might have STDs. The natural consequences (infertility, STDs) cannot be erased and history cannot be rewritten. But the behaviors that led to slutdom (sleeping with a lot of men) can be stopped. The attitudes that led to the behaviors can be changed. Those things in themselves are far better than living out one’s remaining years as an aging cougar/cat lady.
The best that can be done with a reformed slut is to hope that some man will find her acceptable for marriage. She can’t really be recommended for marriage. She will have to grok that her marriage prospects are slim at best and that she will have to accept what she can get. If she cannot accept that, she should be told in no uncertain terms not to marry. She will have to accept that “what she can get” might be “nothing”.
This is why, in my opinion, most women choose not to do the work required or can’t do it. They aren’t attracted to the available marriageable men which shrinks every year as they age. They cannot accept revocation of their carousel season passes and being deprived of alpha c*ck. It’s only those women who realize the carousel leads only to sex, not marriage, who are able to leave it without regret.
I’ve noticed the “reformed slut” and “born again virgin” concepts are gaining lots of traction in Churchianity. It is good that a slut stops doing the things that makes her a slut. It certainly doesn’t damage her partner count further.
But the dangerous part of the “reformed slut” and “born again virgin” meme is that some churches ignore the natural consequences of sluts’ pasts, and in fact tell sluts they don’t have to bear those consequences. This meme tells sluts that they can do whatever they want, and then when they are tired of it or adverse consequences come crashing down, the Church will fix it as if it had never happened. The Church will even supply a steady stream of Christian men ready to wife them up.
They are told in essence “all you have to do is come to Jesus, attend church, and your past is wiped clean! You didn’t sleep with those 30 guys, you will be cured of your STDs, it is as if that abortion never happened at all. Presto change-o, you are now ready for marriage and motherhood and the house with the picket fence. Look, we have a wide selection of men right here for you to choose from.” It is strongly implied or said outright that they will be relieved of all natural consequences of their past actions. I think this is dangerous and misleading.
Repentance starts a former slut on a new life, but it doesn’t erase or reduce partner counts. It doesn’t cure STDs. It doesn’t rewrite history. There is no such thing as a “born again virgin”. Repentance doe not restore a woman’s bodily virginity as if she has never had sex before.
Also, it’s not a one shot deal; it’s a completely new way of life. That has to be learned, and that’s a process. Once a woman stops slutting it up, she has to live that out every day. Sometimes it means working through things; getting counseling, discarding damaging friends and unhealthy relationships. It means having to live out deep, lasting and permanent change in every area of her life, future consequences be damned.
These women are not told to examine WHAT behaviors, attitudes and issues led them to sluthood in the first place. They are not told to get physicals or gynecological exams. They are not told they might have fertility problems or that they might be too old to conceive. They are not told that they will still have to live with their STDs and their consequences, perhaps for the rest of their lives. They are not told about the realities of male/female attraction, hypergamy, or the importance of physical appearance to women’s ability to attract men. They are not told that most men will find them unsuitable for marriage because of their pasts. They are not told of the damage they have done to their bodies, minds and souls, how to repair it, and that some of that damage is irreparable. Instead, they are only endlessly “affirmed” and “validated” and told that “God has a special plan” for them and “God has prepared a husband/soulmate” just for them, and all they have to do is keep on attending church and they will never, ever have to suffer any consequences.
That’s what concerns me as a Christian man when churches and pastors and Christian authors talk about “reformed sluts” and “born-again virgins”.
Deti man i feel your pain. I think we all feel your pain.
@Deti
“With faith, can a slut reform? Yes.”
Really? So can faith magically sew up a std ridden vagina, & undo the years of mental & emotional damage, not to mention their inability to bond with their husband or bf … ?
Wth is up with your hit & run mangina comments?
Every so often you write some hideous mangina comment, & then try & gloss it up with some manosphere sheen …
That shit might run over at walsh’s site for sluts, we live in the real world … & no amount of faith will ever get rid of a sluts carousel riding past …
[D: Deti is no mangina. See part two of his comment which I’m guessing he posted while you were writing this comment.]
@Double E
It is true that the church is absolutely littered with foolish pastors. Because of this there is a great acceptance of what I can only describe as “not entirely foolish” pastors. In this case he is foolish on the topic of marriage. This isn’t a small thing. Marriage is the foundation for Christian sexual morality. If a pastor can’t get marriage right, he can’t get sexual morality right. How does such a man then go about leading others?
They are fools who should by your own words recognize when their pastor is being an even bigger fool and therefore not listen to him. The fact that he specializes in ministering to men for whom his message is most dangerous and foolish isn’t a convincing defense of him.
I am at a loss here. The argument seems to be: Assume he was wise instead of foolish. If that were the case, he would be doing good work. This is true, but entirely beside the point. He may be wise in some areas, but by all accounts of you and the other commenters here defending him he is admittedly profoundly foolish in the very area he is specializing in.
Deti
Also, it’s not a one shot deal; it’s a completely new way of life. That has to be learned, and that’s a process. Once a woman stops slutting it up, she has to live that out every day. Sometimes it means working through things; getting counseling, discarding damaging friends and unhealthy relationships. It means having to live out deep, lasting and permanent change in every area of her life, future consequences be damned.
This reminds me of some 12-steppers I know of. Part of keeping alcoholics sober is keeping them away from the things that trigger them to drink that booze. And that very often includes changing all the people they associate with – maybe all of them. As part of shedding the bottle, they have to walk away from all the people they used to know when they were drinking and acquire a whole new set of friends. Because the old firends are associated with old habits, and the habit that needs to be changed is boozing, so there it is. It’s obviously not easy to do and that’s why AA has those regular meetings. Completely new way of life. Seems to me a carousel rider would be well served by moving to a different city just for a start, unfriending everyone on her social media with the possible exception of relatives and crafting a new persona for herself, one that doesn’t include a whole lot of former habits. It would be easier to do this if there were a group to assist her.
If there isn’t an overt “Sluts Anonymous” there should be one. Perhaps that is what Driscoll thinks he is running? But here’s the question: “Promise Keepers” is a national organization, maybe international by now. Where’s the national equivalent for women, hmm? Where’s the national organization dedicated to helping carousel riders (a) get off the ride and (b) “woman up” to stop being promiscuous and therefore stay off of the carousel? Why doesn’t some churchianity organization pour a few hundred million bucks into that? Why the never-ending “man up, you lazy basement slackers!” cries, eh?
Bob says:
January 17, 2012 at 1:19 am
He normally writes well, in your book. When writing for the MSM, he took the feminist line. Your rationalizations do not change those facts that demonstrate he sold out for MSM and feminism.
You really have no credibility left. So don’t bother answering. You are not worth reading.
@Mellie
Refusing to call out bad choices is cruel. What you are saying to young women is that their own choices don’t matter. Of course the vast majority of perpetually single women have made bad choices. Do you really doubt that?
Note that this attitude is almost exclusively focused on women’s choices. The manosphere is founded on explaining to men how they could make better choices. There is no railing and gnashing of teeth about this. Men have been sold a bill of goods, and the manosphere wants to help them understand why this has been such a disaster. To not tell the truth is cruel, even if that truth is painful.
I don’t think Driscoll is trying to be cruel. That would be sadistic. I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt and chalking it up to foolishness. The end result of a sadistic leader and a foolish leader is no less dangerous however.
>>and eventually trading in their 40-year-old wife for two 20-year-old girlfriends.
This is supposed to be an argument against divorce? Doesn’t work that way, usually works like “trading their 40 year old wife for a 33 year old second wife,” or “for a small harem of regular booty calls.” But whatever. It’s in keeping with the other inaccuracies in the piece.
@Deti
Whereas I would not care to comment on the power of Faith (being myself a disbelieving hell-bound pagan) to bring about a lasting change in a persons nature and habits, never mind erase the physical effects of their behaviour, – changing ones behaviour and permanently – is very, very, diffcult.
Carousel riders are frequently lively, articulate, attractive and entertaining, but those qualities are sadly not what one would look for in a wife (never mind in a LTR ) – which perhaps explains why I am single – I always fall for the wrong sort. I am thus again reminded here of La Traviata (the Opera, Richard Gere pointedly takes Julia Roberts to see in Pretty Woman). Violetta Valery, the heroine (a Courtesan) is as we would now say a Party-Girl or Carousel-Rider. She must be in her thirties. Alfredo Germont (probably mid-twenties) falls for her and she him, but Alfredo’s father – though not unsympathetic to Violetta – points out that ‘the day will come when making love will no longer appeal to you’ and explains that it really isn’t appropriate for his son (and the Germonts are Aristos) to marry her, as sexually she has been round the houses a number of times. Germont Pere does not think his son should man-up, even though Violetta is ‘smart, funny, interesting, successful, attractive – and still single,’ in fact quite the reverse. Naturally, La Traviata [which translates rather appropriately as The Working Girl] being an Opera, Violetta is dead by the end of Act IV though sadly hers is not one of the more exotic or dramatic operatic deaths that Librettists usually wish upon their heroines (she dies of consumption – I suppose a modern production would have her dieing of AIDS or suffering from Herpes).
In this respect, I respectfully disagree with Dalrock, that a woman’s preferred method of promiscuity is Serial Monogomy, as to extend the concept of Promiscuity to Serial Monogomy pushes that concept IMHO beyond anything it can reasonably stand. I would suggest that a slut can be defined by her relationship to any man she sleeps with, at the time she does so; and if that relationship does not extend beyond the temporarily sexual (i.e. overnight) then the more men that she sleeps with the greater the slut. Sleeping with men on a casual basis is a matter of choice. Some women just do not enjoy it; they are the ones who see men as more than just identikit and the bearers of an erect Penis. They are the ones who recognise that a relationship with another person is about more than oneself and takes into account the other person as well, which is what they want to do – which is why they are not single at forty.
The Op Ed seems peculiarly American (if I may say so): the only people over here who are interested in marriage are Homo-sexuals and Royals. The only Pastor approved to give moral advice is The Archbishop who then gets mocked.
@Anon Reader
Reminds me of more gold from Sheila Gregoire from the exchange she and I had on her own blog (do a browser search on “Promise” on that page to see my preceding comments on the subject):
St. Mary of Egypt was definitely a born-again virgin, but I notice that the first thing she did was not tp pester her pastor about why men weren’t lining up to marry her.
Wow Dalrock Sheila is just….. wow!
I’m a Christian, and consider myself “born again”…(I already hear the shrieks from Bill Mahr et al)
Within the faith here is what I’ve found.
The serious men of faith I know are avid readers and researchers of the Word. They, as a group, do not attend wiz-bang “shows” and God productions, as these things are emotional, not logic.
Study, contemplation, prayer, introspection, soul searching, contrition, are all solitary pursuits.
Women are more social by nature, they will always be more represented in small group activities and “God” productions than men. Further, small group settings and “God” conferences are wonderful platforms for women to vent and receive validation, acceptance, forgiveness…WITHOUT…the introspection, contrition, repentance.
I’ve seen MANY cases of affairs, man bashing, etc facilitated by small group activities. Poor hubby is at home with the kids and suzy sainthood is off to bible study, where Mr perfect just happens to be. Hubby thinks his sainted wife is pure, after all, she’s doing church stuff, what could possibly go wrong?!?!?! This is just the church version of girls-night-out, with all of the associated infidelity risks.
Dalrock – ”But even if we stipulated that she was in fact a forty something career woman virgin, are you honestly saying she is proof that men won’t marry, and not far more likely a case of a woman who made very poor choices if her goal in life was to marry? Because this is what Driscoll is founding his argument on.”
Arriving late as usual, and without having viewed either Mark Driscoll’s piece, or any of the other linked examples of his work, but…
I question for you:
Do you see the fact that Driscoll seems to have carefully omitted any details of this woman’s dating/SMP history, nor even of her possible personal effort to avoid marriage, as a back-handed way of announce that whatever she might have done, it doesn’t matter, and shouldn’t even be considered by the men who “should” be chasing after her hand in marriage?
I understand the redemption message of Christianity (even beyond it’s over-emphasis in Churchianity), but I would find it hard to make any sort of judgment about the potential marital quality of anyone, man or woman, without knowing something of what brought them to the situation they find themselves in.
And, it’s not just that an issue of possible promiscuity. An otherwise attractive woman who reaches her 40’s without ever having been married might have any or all of a number of personal issues that have lead to that outcome.
There can be mental/emotional issues which interfere with the ability to form meaningful and potentially lasting relationships. There can be a sort of entitlement attitude which makes all suitors appear to be lacking. There can be an over-focus on career building that left no room for relationships.
My wife had a friend from her late teens who is one of those (conventionally) attractive woman in their 40’s who’ve never married. She one of those who’s kept quite fit, keeps up her looks, and wasn’t a carousel rider. In fact, while we have not maintained close contact with her for some years now, I’d imagine that she is likely still a virgin.
She’s a devoted Christian woman who is highly educated, and worked (like a man) to build a very successful career for herself. But, she’s never even had (to my knowledge) a steady boyfriend.
We still see her occasionally at social functions, and my wife will always ask “the questions” of her, and her answers continue to be that she just “hasn’t met anyone…”
My view is that her 60+ hr/week schedule (more like 80) leaves her little time for much social interaction, and this combines with the difficulty she would have in finding men who are of a higher career status than she (and who are both interested and available – for more than casual sex) to have severely limited her possibilities over the years.
Her Christian devotion, which (at least in her case – as I judge her based on what I know about her) precludes her engaging in sexual activity to try to establish a relationship adds just one more hurtle for her. And, although she has always claimed that she is interested, she’s never actually seemed to be all that interested (in men at all). I also have long had a suspicion that she may also be struggling with actually being a lesbian-in-denial, who acts to suppress her natural desire because it would be in conflict with her Christian faith [/wild speculation]
Lot’s of well meaning people have tried to fix her up with guy’s and believe that she would be a real “catch”, but is seems that she’s never put in much effort. And, this particular woman actually has a lot of money and investments, so any man who would consider marrying her would likely not be putting himself at financial risk (whereas, she might well be).
I guess the point of my rambling would be to wonder if Mark Driscoll’s “example” unmarried attractive 40’s woman is also an example of a woman who wasn’t really ever particularly interested in marriage (or men), but finds herself at a point of realization that she’s about to end up alone, and having to support herself (he states that she is “successful”, but this can be a rather subjective assessment, and can mean only that she has been steadily employed and able to pay her own bills for 20+ years – it doesn’t necessarily mean that she’s “set” for the long-term).
Perhaps this woman is only now just pretending to have been interested in marriage. Perhaps any number of suitable men have wished to “man up” (to abuse that term further) and would have happily married her, but she simply had zero interest. Perhaps she just had deep emotional issues which drove men away as soon as they started to get to know her.
Perhaps she didn’t waster her youth, fertility, and beauty riding the carousel. But, if she didn’t, I’d bet there’s some other reason why she didn’t marry that didn’t involve men not being willing and able. Thus, I’m personally suspicious that Driscoll is trying to send a message that a woman’s history should not be questioned, just her current state of (expressed) interest in marriage.
There is an interview with Driscoll here:
http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/church/features/22807-mark-driscoll-wants-you-to-grow-up
This has more detail on the same issues. Interestingly his view on single motherhood is:
“The number one consumer of online pornography is 12- to 17-year-old boys. What that means is he’s home eating junk food, drinking Monster energy drinks, downloading porn, masturbating and screwing around with his friends. That really doesn’t prepare you for responsible adulthood. That’s a really sad picture, especially if you’re a single gal hoping to get married someday. You’re like: “Seriously, that’s the candidate pool? You’ve got to be kidding me.” That’s why 41 percent of births right now are to unmarried women. A lot of women have decided: “I’m never going to find a guy who is actually dependable and responsible to have a life with. So I’ll just get a career and have a baby and just intentionally be a single mother because there are no guys worth spending life with.”
In other words, more of the same…
[D: Wow. But remember, if he wasn’t so foolish he would be wise…]
@knappertsbusch1962: My comment from the article, but you’re welcome to it.
I think what’s being lost in all this is that irrespective of Driscoll’s efforts as a pastor, he’s still firmly planted in the feminine imperative. He’s still making play calls from the Team Woman play book, painting it as male responsibility, and all while trying to maintain a token appearance of being on Team Man – eerily similar to Aunt Giggles at Hooking Up Beta.
Without an afterthought Driscoll titles his diatribe “Why Men NEED marriage” with the presumption that getting married will force men to Man-Up. This is the extent of his critical thought, because he has no realistic frame of reference beyond what his self-righteous Matrix-think conditioning will permit. He’s batting for Team Woman, but would have us believe it’s for our own good. The irony is literally written into the article’s title, and I’m certain that Mark is entirely oblivious to it.
The presumption is that marriage will cure ‘extended adolescence’; in other words surrendering to the feminine imperative’s dictates for commitment and assuming all the contemporary liabilities that come with it are a prerequisite for legitimate adulthood. Short version: You’re not a real man unless you’re married.
slwerner if she aint gay or asexual. Shes a carousel watcher who thought god would bring her a perfect man. Theres no other option.
Aunt Giggles at Hooking Up Beta
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
FUCKING GOLD!!!!!!!
slwerner and Joshua
Spot on. Also note that Mellie read his piece and argues that it can’t possibly be the result of the woman’s own bad choices. This is the pathology he is feeding and it is rampant. If he isn’t aware of this dynamic he has no business talking on the issue. If he is aware of this dynamic and yet spouts this drivel when given a national platform, that would be plain evil. I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt when I call him a fool.
Question for younger and US readers from a 40something Irishman. Is the 20something male pizza and porn slacker really a common phenomenon in the US in general and in US churches in particular? I have encountered a few such people but not enough to conclude that it is a major issue. When I see the 20something men in my church most of them are hard working (though often in low status jobs).
“The number one consumer of online pornography is 12- to 17-year-old boys. What that means is he’s home eating junk food, drinking Monster energy drinks, downloading porn, masturbating and screwing around with his friends.”
…and 12-17 year old girls are doing what?
Promise Keepers is so well known because they have huge conferences, but there are far more women involved in women’s Bible studies and women’s events than there are men.
Duh. By definition, more women will be involved in women’s Bible studies and women’s events. This tautology in my opinion reveals much about Gregoire’s mindset.
You have to “do it big” for guys to get them out; most women are already involved in a Bible study or a moms & tots group every week, where they do hear about marriage.
Two questions pop up immediately:
Is it true that men don’t respond to small Bible groups? That does not seem to match what my Churchianity friends tell me. What does Gregoire base this on, I wonder?
Assuming that most women are already in a Bible study, what are they hearing? I find it very difficult to believe that they are being beaten on to “do good, no matter what, and Woman Up” the way Promise Keepers seems to do to men.
And of course, none of that has anything to do with reforming carousel riders. It’s almost as the church folks do not acknowledge the existence of the carousel at all…
@dalrock
I followed the link and read the blog exchange about promise keepers. She said:
———————–
“””Incidentally, I think there’s a bit of a warped picture of ministry here, in that it looks from the outside like Promise Keepers was created to lecture to men, while there’s nothing lecturing to women. Nothing could be further from the truth. Promise Keepers is so well known because they have huge conferences, but there are far more women involved in women’s Bible studies and women’s events than there are men. You have to “do it big” for guys to get them out; most women are already involved in a Bible study or a moms & tots group every week, where they do hear about marriage. So it’s not like women aren’t being given the message. More women hear it than men, it’s just that the male side is more famous because it’s done in huge stadiums, rather than in individual church basements (and there are huge women’s conferences, too, so it’s a whole other industry).””
————————
Wrong. More women hear SOMETHING, but they do not here ” IT”. Beth Moore fills stadiums, womens bible studies, smaller gatherings in large churches with the likes of Priscilla Evans….these are encouragement ministries, not accountability ones.
Challenge, so online and seek out random churches websites across the country, then look at the ministry offerings for men and women.
Mens are corrective, accountability type things
Womens are encouragement, self esteem issues, “be the woman of God you can be”…”Dont let the worlds expectations bring you down”….”be Gods princess in a not so princess world”
No, sorry, just because they are sitting in some womans teaching means nothing. They simply do not hear accountability messages much at all.
I read through the bio list and topics of the most recent mega womans conference, I forget the name. Some guy I know on a forum who has a sexless marriage and a wife about to divorce him said he sent his wife hoping it would help. I begged the guy not to.
Divorce is about to ensue, and I will bat that there is actually a positive correlation between these conferences and pockets of divorce afterwards, as the women get that “God Confidence” (Beth Moore’s term) boost to be all she can be.
Half the ladies teaching were divorced and had it in their bios, they’d been ‘abused’, God had ‘released’ them….on and on the commonplace nonsense.
@ Smithborough
No.
@ asinusspinasmasticans
Facebook, attention whoring, slutting around, etc.
No. In Canada, I know exactly 1 guy in my graduating class who does not have full-time employment, and he is disabled and obese, and quite frankly probably mentally ill. I was an omega-jock (played 3 sports)/computer nerd (spent my downtime playing video games with the nerd-jocks, yes there were plenty of us) who, despite going to all the popular parties and having popular friends, had exactly zero female interest.
The guys who are the couch potato pizza eating types? They are the cads, the ones women ooze over. Its typical selection bias. Hardworking men like myself and my coworkers aren’t even humans,m merely devices to extract resources from, so we fly under the radar.
@smithborough sorry about that.
+1 on Rollo Tomasi
Short version: You’re not a real man unless you’re married.
And obeying Mommy without question. That is clearly implied. Because as slwerner so clearly laid out, a self-aware man would ask a lot of questions, starting with Dalrock’s list and exapanding on out. Some of those questions likely would not be very popular with Driscoll’s 40-something “lady”.
I find it very difficult to believe that the largest group of I-porn users are teenaged boys 12-17. I think that he either made that up, or is distorting badly some half-baked poll result. The rest of the text that follows is mangina-drivel.
Smithborough – ”Is the 20something male pizza and porn slacker really a common phenomenon in the US in general and in US churches in particular? I have encountered a few such people but not enough to conclude that it is a major issue.”
There is some truth to the stereotype, even if it is over-discussed in the main-stream press. What isn’t mentioned is that there is a corresponding similar number of female slackers. They don’t tend to spend as much time playing video games (they prefer to hang out at malls and at clubs), and don’t watch as much porn (although there is growing evidence that young women are also viewing a considerable amount of porn – it’s just that it’s “cute” when girls do it).
A young man and a young women can be comparably educated (college, for instance) hold comparable employment, and even make roughly the same salaries – yet, the young man is likely to be seen as under-achieving and lacking in drive to better himself, while the young women will be seen as a motivated over-achiever (she’s working hard for money to spend on herself, while the guy is seen as failing to work to build a nest-egg for marriage. It’s a double standard that still runs deep, expecting men to make all the preparation. And yet feminists will still play upon the mere expectation than men should be doing better than woman to advance the notion that men remain “privileged” in society in regards to employment – a man who isn’t making more than a woman has failed to take advantage of all the advantages that the Patriarchy has put in place for him, while the woman has overcome the disadvantages that were created to hold her down. Pretty slick reasoning, eh?)
”When I see the 20something men in my church most of them are hard working (though often in low status jobs).”
I would bet that the Irish are less tolerant of laziness and slackerism than are Americans, and particularly in rural Ireland. I think that most European countries remain more connected to their histories than we do here in the states. Thus, European’s are more likely to be cognizant that it wasn’t that long ago that basic survival relied on everyone working hard. At least, that would be my guess.
@empathologicalism
Sheila of course knows this given the response she gets from Christian women when she tells them they have obligations in marriage.
slwerner said-“A young man and a young women can be comparably educated (college, for instance) hold comparable employment, and even make roughly the same salaries – yet, the young man is likely to be seen as under-achieving and lacking in drive to better himself”
Its this. a woman can do no wrong and a man can do no right.
@ Dalrock – “Don’t tease me…” He says in the sermon that I linked that they have had all of 5 divorces since the founding of the church (since 1996) out of hundreds of weddings. That’s a pretty good number, but it’s not a solid percentage and I missed where he said these were Biblical divorces. He doesn’t indicate how many couples have divorced unbiblically, but he does say that they initiate church discipline for couples and individuals who will not be reconciled to their ex or spouse. He said there was more info on their other website in their positiion paper, but there’s not a rate or percentage there. Since they have a policy of church discipline, I’d be surprised if they didn’t have the numbers for themselves, but – as you predicted -they don’t have them published.
@ TFH – “Men have been killed, mutilated, jailed, ruined, and separated from their children due to manginas and whiteknights pathetically groveling for feminist approval. Feminism would have gotten no further than black separatism if not for manginas and whiteknights.”
No shit. That’s why I’m saying – the omissions in this article notwithstanding – this guy doesn’t appear to be one of those IRL.
@ Lavazza – “What he wrote must be able to stand on its own, since he cannot be sure to be given the opportunity to expand and/or retract.” The Real Marriage book which he’s promoting here is on sale nationally and, according to their website, is going to be used by about 2000 churches and ministries nationwide. He certainly does have the opportunity to expand on what he’s saying.
Again, I don’t know the guy apart from what I found online, but based on what I found, I think the ad hominem is unjustified in this particular pastor’s case. That said, the article does leave out a man’s responsibility to select only a marriagable woman and what qualifies as that, and I think it could have used a healthy dose of Spengler’s Law of Universal Gender Parity.
On slut reform, I think it’s possible but not very probable, especially if the message they are receiving is the “new in Christ” one that leaves out all the real and lasting effects of sin in this life.
There is no “reclaimed virginity” and even if you are “made new in Christ”, you must still struggle with being the same person you always were, with the same inclination to sin. You may be forgiven, but can’t turn back the clock and erase the past.
There is a case to be made for seeing habitual sin as a bit like addictions (as with the “Sluts Anonymous” suggestion) with the caveat that this is not an invitation to abdicate responsibility for one’s behaviour on the grounds that it is an “addiction”.
True repentance and change does not come from quasi-religious hocus pocus, but from doing the hard yards and not glossing over the truth with ridiculous ideas of being “revirginised”.
Pingback: If Mark Driscoll weren’t so foolish he would be wise. | Dalrock
Smithborough – Quoting Mark Driscoll: ”That’s why 41 percent of births right now are to unmarried women. A lot of women have decided: “I’m never going to find a guy who is actually dependable and responsible to have a life with. So I’ll just get a career and have a baby and just intentionally be a single mother because there are no guys worth spending life with.””
As if woman, especially younger women (aka teen mothers) are putting anywhere near that kind of thought into their decisions to become single mothers. I’d venture that it’s far more likely that if they are thinking about the future at all, the prospect of a government check, rather than a reliable man to provide, is the driving factor behind their decisions.
Next, in their line of reason, would likely be getting pregnant by a guy who already has resources that the government with confiscate on their behalf (err, their babies behalf).
This supposed concern of finding the ”right guy” is probably only a consideration for those who do the very simply things necessary to not get pregnant sans reliable contractually-obligated male provider unit already in place.
The number one consumer of online pornography is 12- to 17-year-old boys. What that means is he’s home eating junk food, drinking Monster energy drinks, downloading porn, masturbating and screwing around with his friends. That really doesn’t prepare you for responsible adulthood.
Funny. Around Silicon Valley, you see a bunch of guys who studied hard, went to good schools, make a good living (or even hit a modest startup jackpot), and who are, by any conventional measure, not only responsible adults, but more than able to assume the roles of husband and father.
That’s a really sad picture, especially if you’re a single gal hoping to get married someday. You’re like: “Seriously, that’s the candidate pool? You’ve got to be kidding me.” That’s why 41 percent of births right now are to unmarried women. A lot of women have decided: “I’m never going to find a guy who is actually [sexy and alpha] to have a life with. So I’ll just get a career and have a baby and [get money from men through the government and] just intentionally be a single mother because there are no guys worth spending life with.”
I’ll just add that no man is obliged to marry a former slut or anyone at all, so it’s stupid to try to shame men into such an arrangement.
Smithborough says:
January 17, 2012 at 11:06 am
Question for younger and US readers from a 40something Irishman. Is the 20something male pizza and porn slacker really a common phenomenon in the US in general and in US churches in particular? I have encountered a few such people but not enough to conclude that it is a major
issue. When I see the 20something men in my church most of them are hard working (though often in low status jobs).
YES!!!
I’m raising a 15yo daughter and the mate prospects for her are horrifying. I don’t blame the young men either. They have a deck so stacked against them that I fully understand their retreat to pizza-n-porn basement life.
When I was their age a teen could get part time jobs, make some money, learn responsibility, and enter adulthood.
Because of open flood gate immigration, and stupid living/minimum wage laws and child labor laws, and lawyers gone wild, illegals now have all those entry level jobs. So if you are an awkward young guy, who is not a “natural” at sports, or blessed with good looks, your fall back position is pizza-n-porn.
@Dex
After reading what this man writes does anyone here believe his megachurch has only had 5 divorces since its founding? Do you believe this?
I’m either psychic, or on to a pattern here. And I’m not psychic.
Forget about him as a man for the moment. Is what he wrote (which I responded to) not incredibly foolish? I’ve pointed out in some detail why it is. I keep challenging people to quote my arguments from the original post and then explain why I am wrong.
Why will no one do this?
Why does everyone keep telling me I’ve misunderstood him as a man? I’ll repeat for what is at least the fourth time in this thread: His ideas are incredibly foolish. He published them in a nationally prominent paper, framing them as Christian wisdom on marriage for men. Unless you can show where I’m wrong, my analysis isn’t unfair. The Op Ed piece I’m critiquing absolutely is feminist foolishness posing as Christian wisdom. If not, I’m sure you will have no trouble showing me why it isn’t.
@ Buck-“YES!!! I’m raising a 15yo daughter and the mate prospects for her are horrifying.”
NO THEY ARE NOT. You just cant see the good ones. Like a woman who cant see a man who isnt an alpha. If you really think there are no good 15 yr old BOYS i would ask you what exactly constitutes and good 15 yr old boy?
The Catholic Church is pretty serious about divorce. A previous commenter mentioned that Peter does a pretty good job of explaining how men and women are supposed to behave in marriage.
Also if you want to find a pastor who preaches traditional, Biblical marriage, look no further than Voddie Baucham. He’s pretty awesome (for a Protestant).
Whether or not Mars Hill has had only 5 divorces (debatable) is beside the point because most of the people who attend churches that do practice discipline in the case of divorce simply change churches. There are no shortage of churches willing to accept them without questioning the circumstances surrounding their dissolution.
” I am stymied that people here are finding it hard to believe that a 40 year old woman with a career could also be a virgin.”
Agreed – my wife has two close friends who are pushing 40, have always been involved in the church, and have never been sexually active. They’re not Carrie Bradshaw wannabe’s… they’re teachers who desperately want to be mothers (and probably would’ve been great ones), but unfortunately took the “wait on God’s timing” thing a bit too literally – they never *worked* on finding a husband…. they also assumed they could stay overweight and attract their dream guy.
But they’re not sluts.
but unfortunately took the “wait on God’s timing” thing a bit too literally
This reminds me of a joke:
A religious man is on top of a roof during a great flood. A man comes by in a boat and says “get in, get in!” The religous man replies, ” no I have faith in God, he will grant me a miracle.”
Later the water is up to his waist and another boat comes by and the guy tells him to get in again. He responds that he has faith in God and God will give him a miracle. With the water at about chest high, another boat comes to rescue him, but he turns down the offer again cause “God will grant him a miracle.”
With the water at chin high, a helicopter throws down a ladder and they tell him to get in, mumbling with the water in his mouth, he again turns down the request for help for the faith of God. He arrives at the gates of heaven with broken faith and says to Peter, I thought God would grand me a miracle and I have been let down.” St. Peter responds, “I don’t know what you’re complaining about, we sent you three boats and a helicopter.”
Joshua says:
January 17, 2012 at 12:15 pm
@ Buck-”YES!!! I’m raising a 15yo daughter and the mate prospects for her are horrifying.”
NO THEY ARE NOT. You just cant see the good ones. Like a woman who cant see a man who
isnt an alpha. If you really think there are no good 15 yr old BOYS i would ask you what exactly constitutes and good 15 yr old boy?
Did you read my post?…I said horrifying, not non-existent.
I look for ambition, respect, morals, sense of humor, future thinking, Christian faith, traditional home life.
The landscape is what it is because of liberal social policy that is militantly anti-male.
Buck – ”YES!!! I’m raising a 15yo daughter and the mate prospects for her are horrifying.”
Joshua – “NO THEY ARE NOT. You just cant see the good ones.”
Sorry Buck, I gotta go with Joshua on this one.
I’m a bit past ti now (my daughters are 23 and 26), but when they were teenagers, there were, of course, plenty of guys that I certainly didn’t want them to have anything to do with. But, even before my observations were confirmed to me via discussion throughout the Manosphere, I couldn’t help but notice that there were also plenty of really nice guys – guys with good future prospects – that they just didn’t seem to be interested in (brought back painful memories of my own experience as an over-looked nice-guy in my Church youth group). The real effort, as it turned out, was in getting my daughters to forget about the bad boys and consider the good guys. The only horrifying was the cultural push to undermine my efforts by encouraging the preference for those bad boys.
Of course, I also raised a son (now 19). And that’s where you can really get to understand “horrifying prospects”.
The lack of quality girls was simply astounding. From the oceans of the personality disordered, to the entitlement princesses, to the young-n-the-slutty; it was hard to see many of any discernible quality. Then, add to that the considerable risks he faced (and still faces) of false allegations and the like, and he was likely even more at risk than were my daughters. The reality was that it would have made more sense to hide my son away from the world than my daughters.
Some of the guy’s my daughters brought home certainly made me cringe, So too the beta orbiter types who wee always coming around trying to be their “friends”. But, there were also soem quality guys in the mix as well.
On the other hand, every girl my son has ever brought ’round has left me screaming inside “run, boy, run!!!”.
Yes, I know a woman who has also not been promiscuous, devout from a very young age and maintained herself sexually. Still found herself single as she turned 30, then 40, and most recently 50.
It happens. But I do think it is partly because of unwarranted delays, unrealistic expectations, and the idea that God is going to drop a husband from the sky.
Thank you slwerner
Legion
Cliff notes=Buck is a worse so-con white knight than Escoffier. There are no good 15 yr old boys for his precious princess according to him.
[D: Buck is a regular here and I’ve never gotten that impression of him.]
The Catholic Church is pretty serious about divorce.
While literally true, in the US at least a few rounds of “counseling” and $500 will buy an annulment in any of the big cities. And don’t forget that Newt Gingrich & his third wife, whom he started sexing up while still married to his second wife, apparently are quite welcome in the US Catholic church. So I guess it depends on what the meaning of “is” is…
“D: Buck is a regular here and I’ve never gotten that impression of him.”
He just said it.
@Joshua
Much has been written that the most destructive force for gen-x and millenial men has been their own mothers, and fathers for the women of those cohorts.
Newt never married in the Catholic Church until his third wife. His other marriages weren’t marriages at all, they were just social arrangements. I can’t stand Gingrich, but that’s beside the point.
And yes, there are some strands of liberalism in the U.S. Catholic Church that should be stomped out like a crawling bug, but a few cases of bishops looking the other way does not undo the very serious attempts by members of the Church to denounce divorce. In some countries, Catholic were the last bastion before the legalization of divorce, and in some Catholic countries it is still illegal (the Phillipines, I believe).
And to point something out – an annulment is not a divorce. It is a recognition that a marriage was never valid in the first place. I know, I know, ripe for abuse. And I’m positive annulments have been misused/abused. However, annulments are not divorces.
Rusty, in the big city parts of the US Catholic church “annulment” is just a fancy word for “divorce”. I have heard that from too many Catholics, in too many places, to ignore it. Whether that is how things are supposed to be or not is beside the point. It is what it is.
@Joshua, D,
Thanks for the vote of confidence.
I’m no white-knight. I have swallowed the red pill, and have a firm grasp of womankind.
Perhaps my post read poorly. My point is that young men are severely disadvantaged, the deck is very much stacked against them BY FEMINIST social policy.
I fully understand young guys seeking refuge in their bomb shelters.
As a kid I mowed lawns, raked leaves, babysat, bussed tables, was a short order cook, dug post holes on a farm, mucked horse stalls, walked dogs, had a paper route, you name it. I started working at 9…my pre-feminist mother strongly encouraged this. Most of those entry level opportunities are no longer available. Men (boys) develop esteem and confidence (game anyone) through work, accomplishment, skill…for women, looks will pretty much carry the day regardless of personality or skill.
The new-mom types are so hyper protective of their kids, that a whole generation of boys are pretty much pussys…this is not the boys fault!
My “princess” if fully expected to work and get good grades, and had better never let me catch her in slut wardrobe. She works on the car with me, we go shooting, etc, and she is not coddled.
We read and discuss the bible daily and she is well aware of the bible idea of what womanhood and morality is supposed to be. I severely shame sluts and always make a point of doing so in front of my daughter. I let her know in no uncertain terms that promiscuous/unfaithful women are sacks of shit and not mate material!
Buck – “Perhaps my post read poorly.”
That it did. Sorry to say, but I think we all thought you meant something far different than what you’ve now explained in your most recent follow-up post.
Tom, Elspeth, slwerner:
I’ve known one — ONE — woman who is in her late 30s, never married, devout Christian, and (claims to be) a virgin. She is not particularly attractive, however.
I suspect the 40s, single, never married, devout Christian virgins you know are outliers, like the one I know. I find it extremely difficult to believe in this SMP and our prevailing culture that anything more than a tiny minority of women — even among professing Christians — make it to age 35 without having at least one or two sex partners. If it’s sex she wants, or to lose her v-card, that’s no problem at all. It’s axiomatic that any woman from a 4/10 on up can get sex anytime she wants. She can find any number of alphas or even greater or classic betas willing to sex her up.
US Catholic church “annulment” is just a fancy word for “divorce”.
Right, which means that one of two things (or probably both things) are happening. 1) Annulments are being abused and used as divorces (which they are not), or 2) the people telling you that don’t understand the difference.
As far as doctrine is concerned, divorce is unacceptable in Catholicism. That much is 100% clear. If annulments are being misused, that’s a problem with errant/rebellious clergy (who have undoubtedly been infected with feminist BS), not the Catholic Church’s position/doctrine.
“you can’t beat something with nothing.”
What is a pastor to do about the large number of women who have made rotten choices, ridden the carousel, or are single moms?
I don’t have to deal with them. They’re not my responsibility. I married a virgin and wouldn’t have it any other way. They’re not the target market of the manosphere. Throw them to the dogs, devil may care.
But this segment of society is huge and it can’t be pretended that it doesn’t exist. After manosphere catharsis / red pill, what is to be done?
The pastors don’t have the same liberty. They must deal with this situation. They are at the forefront. Most are fools and their ministry suffers accordingly.
There are 200+ comments here telling him what he shouldn’t do. So, taking into account this huge segment of women who have made poor sexual choices and are in obvious need of Jesus Christ, I ask again, what is a pastor to do?
Rusty, I’m not here to bash on the Catholic church. But the reality is, there are more annulments in the US Catholic churches than all the rest of the world combined. $500 and a series of counseling sessions buys a couple out of their till-death-do-us-part vows, and enables them to remarry in the church. The sequence is “married -> legal procedure -> not married but can get married again”, and abstractly that is the definition of divorce. So abstractly, in the US, the Catholic church will grant divorces, they just call them something else. Going by the numbers alone that clearly is not the pattern in other parts of the world. Does this mean some priests and/or bishops are going against Catholic rules? Sure does. Is that news to you? You may be writing about “what is supposed to be”, what I’m pointing out is “what is” – perhaps that’s the problem.
Again, I’m not here to bash the Catholic church. But it’s at least generation too late to pretend that there are not people in the church hierarchy who bow to the ways of the world, and follow them pretty openly.
Dalrock says:
January 17, 2012 at 12:06 pm
Everyone who said that you are wrong because of his other writings proves my point that Driscoll sold his soul for the MSM and feminism in the article you originally analyzed.
@Double E
He has two choices:
1) Speak the truth, making those who have made foolish and/or sinful choices uncomfortable while trying to protect the innocent*.
2) Throw the innocent under the bus by pretending that nothing is wrong while blaming men who didn’t create the problem.
*Those who haven’t yet made the same foolish and/or sinful choices, or those who would be taken in by them. This also includes the innocent children this kind of pattern is victimizing by the tens of millions.
Do you really not know the answer to this? Yes, doing the right thing might be difficult or uncomfortable for him personally and detrimental for the financial wellbeing of his church. Selling out innocent men, young women, and children is far easier than dealing with the harsh truth. But the answer should be obvious. If not, I don’t think I’ll be able to persuade you of it.
I’ll turn the same question around. We are surrounded by foolish pastors claiming Christian wisdom. What should I do in response? Should I pretend they are being wise when writing articles of immense foolishness? Or should I call the foolishness what it is? Should I try to protect foolish pastors, or should I point out the foolishness and try to protect the innocent?
Double E:
Here’s what a pastor should do with a slut. I’m not a pastor, but I’ve seen it done.
1. She has to come to some sort of faith. Without it, she’ll stay right where she is emotionally, even if she never goes to another club and never sleeps with another man. She has to make a conscious decision to start living for something larger than herself. If she doesn’t, her hamster will take over and rationalize everything.
She is told some hard truths. She is told that her lifestyle to this point is a result of her choices and she will have to accept full responsibility for those choices. She will have to live with the natural consequences of her conduct to this point — an incurable STD, a high partner count. True repentance will not erase a high partner count or cure an STD.
She is told that if she wants to stop living as a slut and have any chance at a lasting marriage, she has to change her life. She should do this only because she wants to stop making poor choices and improve her chance of marrying. However, depending on her partner count, her appearance and her age, most men will reject her as marriage material. The best that can be hoped for is that perhaps a man will want to marry her. She will be told that if she wants a husband, she will probably have to accept what she can get, and that “what she can get” might very well be “no one”.
2. She has to examine why she became a slut in the first place. That might require counseling, talking it out, whatever. There’s always a why, always a root cause. This will require nothing less than brutal, unflinching honesty with herself and one other person. Get it all out on the table — daddy issues, troubled home life, a traumatic event, an abortion, a bad sexual experience, aimlessness, entitlement princessing, attention whoring — whatever it is. Then she has to forgive it all and let it go.
3. After she verbalizes the causes, she needs to set out her sex life for one other person. She needs to accept what her life became because of her choices. She needs to tell one other person, OUT LOUD, every last sexual thing she did, who she did it with, and how many men she did it with. She needs to own it, take responsibility for it, and acknowledge each of her sexual experiences resulted from HER choices.
4. She has to make changes in her personal life. She has to remove things from her life.that led her to sluthood and that reinforce the behavior patterns that lead her to poor sexual choices. She has to break up with old boyfriends and not see them again. No more clubhopping, dancing on tables, or attention whoring. Get rid of the social media pages. Maybe she has other addictions–she needs to quit drinking or using drugs. All this might mean she loses some of her friends. Too bad. She’ll need to get new ones. She needs to sustain this new lifestyle for at least one year.
5. She needs to get a complete head to toe physical exam including a complete blood count, basic metabolic profile, tests for all known STDs, and a complete inside and out exam by a board certified gynecologist. She needs to have a full understanding of her STD history, its implications for her future paramours (if any), and implications for her fertility.
6. She needs to abstain from all dating and sexual activity for at least 12 months. During that time, she receives a full deprogramming from feminist indoctrination. She learns the truth about male-female relations, attraction triggers, and hypergamy. She learns the biblical view on male-female relationships and husband-wife relationships. She learns that high partner counts adversely affect a woman’s attractiveness as a wife and possibly her fertility.
@Buck:
I’d add to what Joshua says: Read 1 Corinthians 7:13. The idea that a person’s character is from their religion … is a very poor argument to make considering that in the current milieu, the ones I saw doing the slutting around and abortions … happened to call themselves Christians or Catholics.
Deti, great comment. I would expand a bit on this part:
A very likely consequence she must take responsibility for is her damaged ability to experience attraction for the kind of man she can marry, and (if she can experience this) a greatly weakened ability to sustain the kinds of feelings of pair bonding which she has been told are normal. Put brutally, if she marries she may well experience significant periods where she doesn’t feel “in love” with or sexually attracted to her husband. This problem is her creation and her responsibility to overcome. I don’t advise women to marry when this is a likely scenario because I don’t think we have it in us as a culture to demand that she fulfill her marriage vows anyway. However, if she insists on marrying anyway she needs to fully accept the responsibility of this. Her husband deserves a loving and available wife no less for having overlooked her damaging past. Her children deserve a mother and father who both act as husband and wife should, even if she is forced to fake this for extended periods of time (perhaps even years or decades).
OK its good you can at least acknowledge its our environment and the deck is stacked against us. I agree with slwerner’s sentiments. However, everything you mentioned you do with your daughter is the easy stuff and a father who cant tell his daughter being a slut is bad and infidelity is wrong shouldn’t be one. Everything you listed is what you do consciously. What I’m referring to is the unconscious(this is where your white knighting gynocentrism comes in).
The things we teach our children from lessons we actively try to instill in their lives and the things they learn from the innate or learned reactions we manifest(unconscious) are in two completely different categories. What I mean by that is they get most of they’re learning from observing us when we don’t know they’re looking. Its easy to say being a slut is bad and infidelity is wrong but what about the more nuanced situations.
From what I’ve read of you on Dalrock you always react from a gynocentric position. How often do you force her to keep her commitments when she doesn’t want to? How often does her mother and other female members of her family? Whats the last thing she wanted to quit that you made her finish? When she says “boys are stupid”(or any other off the cuff remark she would make out of frustration) do you correct her? When a boy does something that she doesn’t like do you automatically agree with her or let her know there’s three sides to a story, Hers, His and the truth?
You say you’ve taken the red pill but I think you’ve only had half of it. Your still trying to frame men as beings who should do to do things because its right for woman. Gynocentrism. You posting always follows the same format. Reply with white knighting gynocentric drivel. Get called out. Then make a long post including info from the manosphere to prove your a red pill man while completely reformatting the point from your original post. This is why so many men have problems with christian men, Dalrock being a glaring exception.
Dalrock:
Exactly right. Would that even some pastors understood this as a consequence of sluthood, and that this is something which appears to be peculiar to women.
When told that multiple sex partners/high partner counts tends to lead to reduced pair bonding and reduced attraction to marriage-available men, and the science behind it, I’ve heard many women say “why wasn’t I told this? Why isn’t anyone talking about this?”
@Deti: Isn’t that the McDonald’s defence? “I was never told that fast food made me fat…!”
“I was never told that sex with a guy I wanted but not enough to marry was a bad idea” is extremely disrespectful, because it gives the idea that women aren’t responsible for acting on their tingles, and that men “take advantage” of them.
“Her husband deserves a loving and available wife no less for having overlooked her damaging past. Her children deserve a mother and father who both act as husband and wife should, even if she is forced to fake this for extended periods of time (perhaps even years or decades)”
Good point. When I was a kid they used to call this “staying together for the children”. Not a bad thing, I think.
Women also had to make hard choices about whether to divorce before the overhaul of divorce laws in the 1970s and 80s. It was hard to get divorced. Used to be grounds had to be provien, almost always it had to be adultery or life-threatening physical abuse. Alimony was fault-based. If the breadwinner proved grounds against the nonbreadwinner, alimony was forfeited. Child custody to the wife was not presumed; in fact the husband got physical custody far more often.
Re: reformed sluts, born again virgins. Jesus tells us we have to forgive, and in the course of teaching some Pharisees about small “l” love, in John 8 he did forgive a prostitute who expressed repentance, but he also admonished her to go and “sin no more.” He did not marry her, or counsel his disciples or anybody else to marry her.
1) Forgive people their indiscretions
2) Just because you forgive them, doesn’t mean you’re compelled to marry them or foist them off on your friends.
Moreover, Paul counsels against being unevenly yoked. He was referring to interfaith (or perhaps Christian/pagan) marriages. It seems to me also that a person with an extensive history of morality might be well served to be cautious about marrying a person with an extensive sexual history; they would be bearing very unequal burdens pscyhologically.
P Ray: Not really. Feminism and our dominant culture has lied to both men and women for two generations now. We’ve all been told that men and women are exactly the same, they process information identically, and have identical thought patterns. We’ve been told that women have the “right” to have sex when, where, how and with whomever they want, and to do so free from all judgment and adverse consequences. In fact, feminism teaches us that there are no adverse consequences from women racking up double digit partner counts.
The lessons of feminism are that a woman can go to college, pursue a career, have multiple sex partners and delay marriage until she is 30. She will be just as attractive at 30 as she was at 20, even after 10 or more years of drinking, partying, cigarette smoking, staying out all night, and random sex. And when she is ready to marry, a coterie of rich, handsome, and successful men will be standing by, ready to court her, take her on proper dates at fancy restaurants, and whisk her away to exotic vacation destinations. She will select one of those rich, handsome and successful men, who will dutifully propose to her with a 1.5 carat diamond solitaire, and honeymoon her in Europe. She will return to a 4 bedroom McMansion in the suburbs, equipped with nanny and maid, where she will watch TV and birth her 2.4 children. She’ll never have to work another day at her icky HR/PR job.
The truths we talk about in the manosphere just don’t seem to be making it into the culture at large. Even the pastors I know don’t understand the science behind pair bonding, attraction, hypergamy or divorce statistics. I can kind of understand why women act this way. The culture encourages it, reinforces it and enables it. The church remains ignorant at best, looks the other way, or at worst rationalizes it and dsitorts Scripture into supporting it.
Err right, you guys can go marry a used up carousel riding slut first … christians first, the rest of us’ll wait till you guys get gonorhea, or get dumped for a bad boy thug … whichever comes first …
There’s ONE VITAL PART missing from deti’s mangina reform slut program …
You’re depriving the husband from being with a REAL NONE carousel riding slut, who gets to experience a REAL RELATIONSHIP
Also theres PLENTY of none carousel riding women to choose from, why the hell would the church want to promote promiscous used up sluts to eligible men, when they can have real relationships with undamaged unabused, none std ridden women?
Which is WHY men goto church in the first place …
There is no such thing as a reformed slut, its a pipe dream, as are all mangina’s programs for sluts …
[D: You are confusing our thoughts on how a slut can reform herself with an endorsement for marrying one. I’ve already answered the latter question.]
Rmax:
You’re not reading carefully. Most truly reformed sluts are unfit for marriage and probably won’t get married. The point of slut reformation is to get them to take responsibility for their own lives and maybe help them make their lives better. It’s not turn them into wife material.
Here’s what I said:
“However, depending on her partner count, her appearance and her age, most men will reject her as marriage material. The best that can be hoped for is that perhaps a man will want to marry her. She will be told that if she wants a husband, she will probably have to accept what she can get, and that “what she can get” might very well be “no one”.”
“Women also had to make hard choices about whether to divorce before the overhaul of divorce laws in the 1970s and 80s. It was hard to get divorced. Used to be grounds had to be provien, almost always it had to be adultery or life-threatening physical abuse. Alimony was fault-based. If the breadwinner proved grounds against the nonbreadwinner, alimony was forfeited. Child custody to the wife was not presumed; in fact the husband got physical custody far more often.”
Husbands got physical custody more often before 70s?
and I am not even sure about the alimony part.
http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2011/09/alimony-racket-quotations.html
Feminisms greater triumph, and its ultimate downfall can be traced to a single thing: Denying a man a virgin bride. From everything else flows this achievement. And all our decay, to this single truth.
This was feminist equality in 1912:
Under the married women property act a husband has no jurisdiction over his wife’s property and income. Under the income tax he is responsible for her taxes. If the taxes are not paid, the husband, not the wife, is imprisoned. Mrs. Wilks refused to pay her income taxes–$185–and her husband was locked up. He will spend the rest of his life in prison unless the wife pays or the laws are changed.
http://fullofgraceseasonedwithsalt.blogspot.com/2011/01/sends-husband-to-jail-to-aid-suffrage.html
“what’s yours is mine, and what’s mine is mine” and if you deny it, you relegate women to property status.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Married_Women%27s_Property_Act_1882
@dalrock
Touche.
@ all the single men here bashing Deti’s slut reform program:
Since Dalrock and I married the last two virgin women on the face of the earth, what are you going to do besides complain that there are no virgins left?
[D: Thanks.]
“(a) Source of Women’s Property.
The piteous tales of artistic working women, of wives robbed by their worthless husbands, from the Mrs. Morton of fact to the Miss Trotwood [1] of fiction, formed the foundation of the claim for a revision of the law. Liberty for women to retain their own earnings. Obvious equity here! But the bulk of women’s property, in 99 out of every 100 cases, is not earned by them at all. It arises from gift or inheritance from parents, relatives, or even the despised husband. Whenever there is any earning in the matter it is notoriously earning by some mere man or other. Nevertheless, under the operation of the law, property is steadily being concentrated into women’s hands.“Once Stridhan [Woman’s property] always Stridhan.” [ 1 Mrs. Morton figures to be Hannah Morton, a successful shopkeeper in Hastings, England. Miss Trotwood is a character in “David Copperfield” by Charles Dickens. ]”
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Legal_Subjection_of_Men#Matrimonial_Privileges_Of_Women.
Interesting, I need to go through this book again. Obviously this was a very slow method, the alimony racket and the rise of female millionaires did it at one stroke.
The maintenance of their wives:
As a successful lady litigant (May, 1896) remarked to her husband, “There is no law which compels me to obey or honour you, but there is a law that you must keep me.” This woman tersely sums up the position. In the case of a man of property the Courts will expropriate him for the benefit of his wife. In the case of a wage-earner the Courts from police magistrates to Supreme Court will decree him to be her earning slave, bound to work for her or go to prison. A wife, no matter if rolling in wealth, is not obliged to contribute a penny to her husband’s support, even if he be incapacitated from work through disease or accident. The sole exception which the law makes in derision is that if he be actually in such destitution as to go to the workhouse, then the wealthy wife is obliged to pay, not to her hus- band, but the local authorities, the cost of his main- tenance at the exiguous scale usual in such cases. Even a wife who, against her husband’s wish, leaves his house after assaulting and insulting him can obtain 7 against him an order for restitution of conjugal rights. This is a mere preliminary to form a basis for a claim for sequestration of his property for her maintenance.
The “Legal Subjection of Men” deals with the British law, googling ‘Married Women’s Property Act in US’ gave me
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/366305/Married-Womens-Property-Acts
“Married Women’s Property Acts, in U.S. law, series of statutes that gradually, beginning in 1839, expanded the rights of married women to act as independent agents in legal contexts.
The English common law concept of coverture, the legal subordination of a married woman to her husband, prevailed in the United States until the middle of the 19th century, when the economic realities of life in the New World demanded greater flexibility for women. Because men sometimes could be away from home for months or years at a time, a married woman’s ability to maintain a household pivoted upon her freedom to execute contracts. ”
Not sure how much of the English law carried over and thus how much Bax’s criticism will apply. The inequality goes way back, the joint custody consideration after 70s(not much help), reducing alimony(?) and alimony acceptance by a few men(leading to enraged ex-wives leading to last year Massachusetts change of alimony law) are pretty much all that I think that have been done for men.
As to the topic at hand, few days ago I read with some fascination these women talking of single men in their area:
“The males they remember from high school typically still live at home, without much motivation to date, much less to rise in the world. Even those who’ve left their parents’ house, they complain, are laid-back to a fault, too lazy or inept to make small talk in a bar, ask a woman out, make reservations, or dress appropriately. Natalie sums it up: “Guys have lost the idea of what girls want on a date.”
Tracey is tired of spending the evening in a chic Whistler bar with guys dressed “for video games in the basement: baseball caps and baggy T-shirts.” Natalie adds, “They dress down, so they act down.” And what used to be called common courtesy now looks freakishly uncommon.”
http://www.vanmag.com/News_and_Features/Do_Vancouver_Men_Suck
Their goal isn’t marriage, at least not currently, and they most probably won’t turn to the church unless I am ignorant about some flourishing church culture in Canada. What they speak sounds similar except for the parts where they’d like them to be good company at bar/dates than as husbands. Men who should conform to their expectations.
@Double E:
The non-virgins eventually give birth to virgins. The only problem between that and meeting a men are usually no “social sanctions” or “bad consequences” for not being a virgin.
Which is why so many women are against virginity testing. They want all the benefits of being considered a virgin, while slutting around.
Since the normal man (read: no sex until very much later in life) is under greater threat by marrying such a woman, it is best to consider them ALL sluts until proven otherwise.
Relationships have now entered the situation where you don’t think about “winning the most”.
Rather, you have to be sure that you “lose the least”.
@namae nanka:
Sounds like the good old Conservative idea “God will send me a man who can forgive all my faults, that I am attracted to who always agrees with me and leads unless I don’t want him to and doesn’t get jealous or stray”.
In other words … if she cheats, he didn’t lead enough,
and if he cheats, he’s worthless.
That song seems to be stuck on repeat play. In reality, the women are after alpha … but won’t say it for one of 3 reasons:
1. they don’t know it,
2. they know it and are embarrassed to say it
3. they know it and they know how well some behaviour works on some women, so try to lie and deflect to men about the truth so that they have a constant source of validation and favours which is not likely to dry up (since unattached men are considered easier to fool into such situations).
Well, it’s important not to soft soap a situation like this. So, let’s talk straight.
All the men who are going to have to deal with these damaged women? Who cares about them. Screw them.
All the girls who have yet to destroy themselves, and who he could help stop from wrecking themselves? Who cares about them. Screw them.
The children that these women will have before the divorce and the suffering they will go through? Who cares about them. Screw them.
After we’ve, in the strictest adherence to proper Christian doctrine thrown almost everybody under the bus, we can then focus on playing Captain Save-A-Ho.
Deti, it would be useful for a lot of lurkers if we had some links on the science. Hypergamy is pretty easy to explain, but some of the biological issues on pair bonding and information processing are more challenging. Let’s look around and see if we could accumulate links in posts, then at the very least we’d be able to point to some “here” or other as a place for men to start learning.
Let me Google that for you!
http://bit.ly/A0w0Jd
Thanks, Joshua, nice site. I’ll bookmark it.
P Ray says:
January 17, 2012 at 4:15 pm
@Buck:
I’d add to what Joshua says: Read 1 Corinthians 7:13. The idea that a person’s character is from their religion … is a very poor argument to make considering that in the current milieu, the ones I saw doing the slutting around and abortions … happened to call themselves Christians or Catholics.
P Ray,
I’m doing the best I can to raise a daughter who is “saved”, THEN a woman who will contribute to society, be a blessing to her mate, not a boat anchor.
In my imperfect attempts at this task, I know little girls are very much influenced by their father and look at him as her ideal for a later mate choice.
If we want to talk “man up”, well here we go.
I make sure I am honest with her and her mother ( Satan is a liar and the father of lies). I shame sluts and make sure she knows I think they are trash. I don’t gamble, smoke, get drunk, do drugs, swim in debt.
I read and value education, we are very careful about movie choices, there is no smut allowed in my house. I have discontinued associating with friends who cheat on their spouses and when asked by daughter I tell her why.
Our society has so dumbed down basic morality, the worst sin now is being “judgmental” …BULL SHIT!!!
The only way we can save marriage, and civilization for that matter, is for men to man up and start speaking out about moral failings!
HOW ?
Be moral!
Shame immoral conduct!
NO RINGS FOR SLUTS!
I know there will be a loud screech from the baggage crowd about forgiveness, redemption, changed life etc…GOOD…because at least this acknowledges that they see themselves as flawed, damaged goods. If nothing else, they can serve as a bad example. Forgiveness does not mean marriage!
In my occupation, if I’m caught stealing, I’m fired…PERIOD!
I can pay back, ask forgiveness, make restitution, walk on hot coals, self flagellate with a whip while reciting Gregorian chants…BUT I’M FOREVER A THIEF.
I willing raised my hand and swore an oath for my job, I knew I severely restricted my own freedoms to be immoral by doing this. Since the community pays me, they have every right to expect better moral behavior from me, and sanction me drastically if I fail this trust…THIS IS GOOD!!!!!
Men must hold women to a similar standard.
The only reason women are slutty tramps is because no matter how slutty she is, some dumb-ass guy will accept her damaged goods.
Believe me, I fully understand the attraction of men to the pump-n-dump culture. For guys, it’s never been better pickens for effortless tang. Women are shallow and base, I know, but if a fix is desired, being “mean” is a good place to start
Really Driscoll isn’t someone thats going to be loved by traditional feminists or MRA’s. Traditional feminists don’t like him because he is complementarian and believes in some duty of submission by a wife.
But then he’s going to tick off the MRA’s by throwing in his typical “man up” sermon. While he tries to tell Christian women to submit to their husbands, he’s not at all a stranger to man shaming.
Really Driscoll is hypermasculine to the point that the only real men are him and people just like him. He seems to focus his ministry on proving his a real man and telling everyone how real men should behave. The only people that will like him are the men that are just like him and the women who love men who are just like him. The main reason I dislike him is because he leaves so little freedom for a man to be an individual.
I also don’t like him because he throws people who disagree with him about the direction of the church out. I don’t like him because he goes too far in his call for married women to have sex. While I think it is a sin to withhold sex from your partner for any length of time other then by mutual consent, I would not go so far as to state that failure to provide oral sex is somehow a sin.
Lastly I don’t like him because I really feel like his ministry is more about him. His church has opened up several locations with their own “pastors”, however these pastors are given no authority to preach as all the locations tune into a video sermon of Mark Driscoll’s preaching at the church’s origional seattle location. Nothing says to me that this is about one man then a dozen church’s tuning in to listen.
To me Driscoll is just a guy who knows how to play a crowd. He knows what the crowd likes to hear and he says it. If women don’t like their husband’s video games he will shame them about video games. If women complain that they can’t find any real men, he’ll tell those men to man up. But then the men complain about not getting enough sex and he’ll state that too. I think a lot of his listers take the crap that they don’t like to hear, often enough maybe taking it to heart in order to hear him say the things they do like. So for example men will listen to his man shaming just so they can hear him tell wives to have sex with their husbands. And women will listen to his submit sermons so they can hear him to tell all of the men to man up, stop doing what they like, marry those Christian women, treat them like princesses. . . and for God sakes stop playing video games and watch some ultimate fighting you wimp.
Dalrock:
“A very likely consequence she must take responsibility for is her damaged ability to experience attraction for the kind of man she can marry, and (if she can experience this) a greatly weakened ability to sustain the kinds of feelings of pair bonding which she has been told are normal. Put brutally, if she marries she may well experience significant periods where she doesn’t feel “in love” with or sexually attracted to her husband. This problem is her creation and her responsibility to overcome.”
I was thinking about this again today. It’s a crucial point to make to a reformed slut that her choices in men are part of why she’s a slut. Certainly, the alpha a**holes, bad boys, jockheads and douchebags she’s used to sexing will never consider her for marriage. They themselves are wholly unsuited for marriage.
None but the most magnanimous high status man or attractive alpha will consider her for marriage. Her partner count is too high, she’s too old, and she probably has fertility problems.
A reformed slut will have to accept that her marriage prospects are extremely limited.
Not if she’s beautiful. Which needs to be acknowledged. And also y’all need to stop projecting lack of ability to bond onto all women with a partner count above 1. Bonding ability is related to partner count, but partner count is only part of the story, not the whole thing. What impacts a woman’s bonding ability is mostly how she feels towards men. Women who genuinely love men are more likely to bond well if they do marry for life, especially so with a low partner count or virginity and that love can compensate to some degree for a higher partner count, enough to allow them marry monogamously.
It’s pretty two-faced for men to argue that they can bond well despite a high partner count but those big mean evil slutz can’t possibly, ever, no way no how. Obviously it’s a continuum.
Don’t shame us for our preferences, get over yourself “lady”.
No rings for sluts, you may have gotten lucky.
@name nanka
I lived in vancouver for 30 years, the women are the huge Plain Janes and dress maybe even worse than the men. I went on many dates there and women show up looking like they are ready to clean the house: sweatpants, hair still wet , no make up. I’d mistake them for amish dykes if I didn’t know any better. There have been articles about how Vancouver is one of the least fashionable cities out there.Many males give up on Vancouver women due to their out of control expectations and demands and huge egos. Out of control hypergamy.Never have I seen city out of 7 that I have lived in where escorts services and brothels, strip clubs( many closed down now) are so widely used than Vancouver. Prostitution/escorts is quasi legal there and these services are used by men by the ton(including myself when I was there). The Men get no love from their women.
I now live in Florida and people are much more sociable here. Vancouverites are hands down the most anti-social, unfriendly, coldest people on the planet. I often wondered how British Columbians even reproduce, but when the country is now 50% foreign born, it doesn’t surprise me at all.Not enough babies born, cold stand-offish people, out of control feminism and left wing politics galore. Everyday Im glad I left. It has the worst social environment that I have ever seen.That city is going to be one filled with spinsters coming up like no other I have seen so far
A Lady:
Do yourself a favor and click on the link Joshua supplied above. Learn about pair bonding and oxytocin before you presume to hold forth about it.
You say, with no sources or scientific support, that “What impacts a woman’s bonding ability is mostly how she feels towards men. Women who genuinely love men are more likely to bond well if they do marry for life, especially so with a low partner count or virginity and that love can compensate to some degree for a higher partner count, enough to allow them marry monogamously”
Any links, science or sources to support these statements?
Men and women are different. Science shows pair-bonding is reduced in WOMEN with high partner counts. Men seem to be less affected by it.
“Deti: Men and women are different. Science shows pair-bonding is reduced in WOMEN with high partner counts. Men seem to be less affected by it.”
It’s statistically more likely, but it does vary. I’m not defending A Lady’s tone, but what she said rang a bell with me.
I see a lot of comments from men who treat generalities as absolutes. Sad to say it reminds me of women and their “men are all idiots” crap. The truth is there are plenty of idiots of both genders.
I agree with Dalrock’s assessment of Driscoll’s inconsistent messages, and that the “Christian” Man Up stance is utter BS. I also agree that the consequences for promiscuity are real. For both genders. However, the manosphere is full of good men who have learned life’s lessons the hard way. Women do that too. Lower and higher partner counts have bearing, but they guarantee nothing. Reading comments, I get the impression some people forget that.
Booze, blowjobs and looking for blood?
Maybe he is not totally lost…
“Booze, blowjobs and looking for blood?
Maybe he is not totally lost…”
Bingo.
He’s power monger and a showman; the church is a handy venue.
I would like to thank Deti and Buck for helping to perpetuate my two meager contributions to manosphere quotability – the Carousel Watcher ™ and NRFS!
@Kirk
I get the impression that Driscoll’s past stance was largely one of extreme AMOGing the congregation and other Christian men in general.
“What impacts a woman’s bonding ability is mostly how she feels towards men. ” … lol
@Suz “It’s statistically more likely, but it does vary.” Yes, in their heads … The science isnt some generalisation, it’s scientifically proven, hence the statistics
In short women are wired biologically not to cheat with multiple partners, precisely because of theyre short window fertility, compared to a mans massive 90+ year window of fertility
It’s like saying not all women have weak upper body strength … ALL women who sleep around, irrevocably destroy their biology & ability to bond with their children, it’s a biological fact …
I also find it ironic, Deti suggests scientific data proving sleeping around destroys their ability to bond, while in the same thread, he suggests a reformed slut program, straight out of a mangina guidebook …
@ Dalrock,
I had to look up what AMOGing was, and after looking it up I’d say you are probably right on that. I’m just not a fan of hypermasucline preachers at all. They try to turn God into thing’s he isn’t just to fit into their narrow definition of masuclinity. Somehow Jesus who told us to love our neighbor’s and turn the other cheek turned into an ultimate fighter in their minds. They try to deemphaise and work their way around love your neighbor and turn the other cheek the same way divorcee’s will often try to work their way around Jesus’s divorce teachings.
“Rmaxd: In short women are wired biologically not to cheat with multiple partners, precisely because of theyre short window fertility…”
Cheating is not the issue, high partner count is. Statistics frequently ARE generalizations, especially statistics that measure only one or two variables of a complex phenomenon. Two points about oxytocin immediately come to mind. First, varying levels of the hormone in individuals, and second, its broader applications. Oxytocin is believed to be related to women’s ability to “move forward” from one close relationship to another, and it’s believed to mitigate PTSD. One very old use for this is in the need to cope with the conquest/rape/kidnapping of women in more primitive times. Husbands frequently died young. It was not uncommon for a fertile woman to watch her husband, brothers, and male children be murdered by invaders, before being forced to start over with a new husband. The female’s ability to pair-bond more than once was absolutely necessary to human survival, because a huge percentage of women lost at least one mate during their brief reproductive years.
It could be argued that women are programmed for successful serial monogamy. Oxytocin promotes attachment, but it also promotes REattathment. Same science, different outcomes.
The variable I can’t pin down though, is the connection between multiple LTRs and the reduced ability to permanently pair-bond. Is it hormones, learned behaviors, fear and other stresses, or a combination of all three?
Eh, I think you overexaggerate the effect losing husbands young had on a woman. I’m more inclined to feel that extremely high infant mortality and death during birth were much larger reasons. Simply put, most women don’t give a shit about their husbands now, or at any time in the past. Would a woman mourn a broken clothes line? a shattered vase? A wrecked car?
You could be right ybm, except for a few points. Back when men were actually respected, a widow lost more than her sweetheart – she lost her status among men and other women. And she also lost her property. Deep personal bonds or not, the loss of a protector would be horribly traumatic. (I hope you’re being facetious…)
We are at an impasse and will have to agree to disagree, because I don’t believe men were ever actually respected, and a woman has never referred to her “sweetheart” beyond what he provides. Again, as you say, the loss of a “protector” would be traumatic for a woman and I agree. But no more so than any other protection device being lost would traumatize, including a piece of wood with a nail hammered through it.
In all of history, a woman’s status is directly tied to what a man can provide. I refuse to believe a woman would mourn seing her “husband” brutally murdered by crusaders beyond the loss of resources and status, until she was acquired by the invading horde and protected again.
The man-tool is unimportant beyond the resources, he who has lost to the invaders had no status to confer, he is a loser, and will be genetically cleansed. See white women’s reaction to the white male in contemporary society for more, east asian female and east asian male for additional information. Their beta-men-tools are not fit to be reproduced with.
ybm, there is someting in what you say. Women tend to be adaptable to situations. But I think women are capable of true loyalty. Instincts are powerful, but men and women can transcend them.
A Lady has a point too. A really attractive woman can always find a husband, no matter her partner count. But most women are not that attractive, and only somewhat pretty for a while. It is the averagely attractive women who lose out. I said recently to my 17 y.o. daughter about a girl serving in a pharmacist, that she was only moderately attractive, and her best cards were her youth and freshness. The tattoo on her arm made her look slutty and damaged her chances.
I entirely agree with you that women are capable of true loyalty.
But I do not believe they are being loyal to the man as a human being in the same way a man is loyal to his wife as a conscious being. She is loyal to his status, his resources, and his protection, when those are gone so is her loyalty.
I put it to you another way: In seeing his wife hacked to death by an invading horde, how many men would pick up the nearest sharp object and run head-first into the murderer, and into his own doom? How many men would rather die than live with the image of seeing his beloved woman defiled and murdered right in front of him?
How many woman would?
Yes, I do see your point. My wife once said, in a rare moment of self-reflection, “women have to have pragmatic morality because we have children to consider”. Women have teleological morality (ends justify means), men have more deontological (taking a moral stand).
I also agree that women “fall in respect” rather than love. The upside is that there is almost nothing a woman won’t do for a man she respects. That said, respect can grow into fondness. I have been a bit beta lately, consciously, but she has not gotten out of line. Should she do so, alpha will return. Husbands do get to lower their guard sometimes.
@Suz
“Oxytocin promotes attachment, but it also promotes REattathment. ”
Oxcytocin builds resistance, I explained this in an earlier post, oxcytocin is a highly potent chemical, which your body builds resistance to rapidly
The resistance experienced by your body is irreversible
Also a woman has far more chemicals involved in bonding then oxcytocin, but her ability to produce those hormones is limited, precisely because of her short window of fertility
Dopamine, has a much lower potency, but your body builds very little resistance to it, hence the effectiveness of dopamine creating behaviours, such as asshole game, & being pumped & dumped
ybm:
On your comments about the connections between feminism and puritanism: you might want to check out a good MRA site out of England: anglobitch.com. It’s written on a scholarly level and the blogger discusses this issue in a lot of detail in several posts.
I agree with ybm.
MOST women love their husbands with the self-oriented love that a child has for its parents.
Women fall in love with the cloak of social status that the man wears. I don’t think too many women would fall in love with the actual essence of that man.
How many MORE women wanted the rich’n’famous musician/druggie/poet Kurt Cobain AFTER it was clear that he was going to be famous and highly sought after?
Sure, there are always women who would date him when he was a poor nobody musician/druggie/poet.
His essence did not change. His words and “beautiful insights” didn’t change. His drug use probably did not either.
What did change was his wealth/lifestyle, and the ability to evoke jealousy in the eyes of competing females.
Even famous alphas are really just tools to further the end of female self-promotion and competition.
When a woman f-cks you, she is f-cking your cloak (or what she perceives to be your cloak), not you.
In other words, if you are a man of means and status, a woman will love things in you that she would despise in others.
Rock Star wearing eyeliner = dreamy.
Average guy wearing eyeliner = dork.
Pingback: Men need marriage - Page 3
Yep women dont know how to connect or bond with men, women are socially contextual, it’s the social context of a man, which allows her to create the chemicals to bond with a man
An alpha is a socially contextual object, his alpha behaviour creates large doses of dopamine, while his scarcity creates large bonding oxcytocin …
It’s an Alpha’s indication of scarcity & the social status gap between the man & woman, which determines how much she bonds with the man
The higher the social status gap, the higher her likelihood of her wanting to marry
We can see this in action in the Victorian ages, where the mens status was so high, every courting was a presumption of marriage by the women of that era
“Women fall in love with the cloak of social status that the man wears. I don’t think too many women would fall in love with the actual essence of that man.”
What you’re describing isn’t love, it’s self interest dressed as romance. It’s an interesting perspective, and it begs the questions: What do men fall in love with? Is a man’s love merely self interest dressed as lust and power? How do you define the difference between “male love” and “female love?”
Yes, I do see your point. My wife once said, in a rare moment of self-reflection, “women have to have pragmatic morality because we have children to consider”. Women have teleological morality (ends justify means), men have more deontological (taking a moral stand).
This reflects my experience as well, and it does make intuitive sense. What is that popular expression … “men love women, women love children, and children love puppies” or something like that. Pretty true, it seems to me.
However, this is also likely the reason why virtually all advanced religious systems provided for men to be the moral reasoners. An ends-justifies-the-means approach to morality (contextual morality, really) is fine for raising children, but it’s absolutely disastrous for ordering a society, or even ordering personal moral decisions over the course of a lifetime.
It reminds me of something I read in Stephen Pinker’s book “The Blank Slate”, where he was critiquing feminist author Carol Gilligan’s claim that women have a different moral reasoning approach than men do (more contextual and relationship-based and less comfortable with abstract rules and applying them uniformly across the board). Pinker’s comment was that if this were really the case, no women should be permitted to serve on the Supreme Court. Was a pretty funny quote, because I’m sure it made almost every female who read it boil in anger — and Pinker actually considers himself a feminist — his point is not that women are like how Gilligan describes them to be, but that he thinks Gilligan is wrong, or may be wrong. I think Pinker is actually wrong, but in light of that I find what he wrote there quite humorous.
“A really attractive woman can always find a husband, no matter her partner count.”
Yes, but the men willing to marry a hot, high partner count slut will be of decidedly lower caliber and sexual market value than the men she selected for sex and LTRs when she was younger. She slept with alphas and douchebags whom she wanted to commit to her but they would not. As she ages and drives her partner count up, the pool of men willing to marry her shrinks and its quality declines. They used to call this “assortative mating”. She will have to accept these as facts, as well as all the consequences flowing from it. It looks like an unwillingness to accept those consequences fuels the divorce industry.
“But most women are not that attractive, and only somewhat pretty for a while. It is the averagely attractive women who lose out.”
Also true. Men seem to understand this, women don’t. This SMP gives most women a highly inflated view of their own SMVs.
It’s the confusion that if she gets an alpha for the night, she thinks she can keep him forever.
Wanting a guy whom every other girl wants is a recipe for disaster, and especially if she alienates other men by trying to make him jealous through behaving coyly and coquettishly with guys she has no intention of being exclusive with.
At the end of it, you have a satisfied player, and a bunch of cockteases (effectively). Which informed person would want to commit to either of that?
Some women hit the wall with astonishing speed. It can happen at any age. I have seen attractive thirty year olds change dreadfully in a year or so. Many girls are luscious at twenty and nothing special at thirty. But there are some women who remain stunning for decades. With the right personality, these women can transcend partner count. I suspect these rare women delude other women into thinking this is normal.
Not all high partner count women are sluts. I think bringing back the term harlot would help contextualize the continuum I am talking about. People used to understand that harlotry was a big umbrella, encompassing the carousel mentality of what is often termed slut, but also including the foolish serial monogamy/bonding that characterizes the ‘hooker with a heart of gold’ trope. People had better perspective on the range and how it related to a woman’s beauty.
We aren’t slaves to our brain-chemicals, and even our reactions to them exist along a continuum. Plus, certain men are quite guilty of attributing quite a lot to a statistically and methodologically weak pool of data when it suits their belief that mean slutz canna bond.
The reality is that the modern slut has trouble bonding because she is often taking hormones (hormonal birth control at a minimum) for years, sometimes decades, and she is also pursuing sexual relationships of the most short-term and temporal sort.
The harlot, conversely, simply pursued serial monogamy to the best of her capability and was in fact eager to find Just One Man, so much so that it is part of the mythos because of its underlying truth.
I suppose I am saying that when the woman is beautiful and promiscuous, she is behaving more like a harlot and has a decent chance of bonding well monogamously (and as well, of bailing on the harlotry at a young age), but when she is not beautiful but is promiscuous, she is pursuing the slut model and less likely to bond well (along with bailing on the sluttiness at a late age, when pickings will be slim regardless of looks).
In fact, experience bears this out. Kate Bolick is rare. Most such beautiful women partner up before 40, quite often before 30. A beautiful woman’s sexual foolishness rarely persists precisely because men give her attention without her having to ‘earn’ it through frequent and degrading sex acts.
@ A Lady:
“Not all high partner count women are sluts. I think bringing back the term harlot would help contextualize the continuum I am talking about. People used to understand that harlotry was a big umbrella, encompassing the carousel mentality of what is often termed slut, but also including the foolish serial monogamy/bonding that characterizes the ‘hooker with a heart of gold’ trope.”
Interesting, A Lady, but ultimately in today’s SMP, this is splitting hairs. The difference between a “slut” and a “harlot” (using your definitions) is really a distinction without a difference. The way men see it, a notch is a notch, whether she sexed him for a night or a year. Twenty LTRs is the same as 20 ONSs. She is still making poor decisions about who she sleeps with. And either way, it says that she has difficulty assessing the character of the men she sleeps with. Perhaps the LTR girl is trying harder, but she ends up in the same place as ONS girl.
If she sleeps with 20 men in serial LTRs, and they all leave her or she leaves them, she still has nothing to show for it at the end except a partner count of 20. Did she make sound decisions? They all ended, and she has nothing to show for it except an inflated partner count.
If she sleeps with 20 men in ONSs, the result is the same. She still has nothing to show for it at the end except a partner count of 20. Did she make sound decisions? They all ended, and she has nothing to show for it except an inflated partner count.
When you think about it, it’s all the same, really.
Um, the actual effects prove it’s not. The beautiful foolish harlots marry (and typically marry well), the plain sluts do not (at best, marry poorly). The realities of the MMP reveal the preferences.
To the contrary, it isn’t splitting hairs but acknowledging market reality.
A Lady seems to get my point. Some men (I am one) prefer to marry virgins. But some men don’t care and are happy with a woman with a lot of experience, provided she is sexy and interesting. But most women are not like that for long. Many women don’t age well. Not just physically but in their personalities. It is the men, the average ones, who get the girl once she is past her prime, that I think miss out.
Yes, I am not saying it is good to be beautiful and foolish, only noting that such women can recover from their foolishness better in certain regards than plainer women, who are forced into greater foolishness by a more sexually forward social environment. When all the Charlotte Lucases are encouraged to behave like Marianne Dashwood, it’s still going to be fine for the Mariannes, but it will take them a bit longer to settle down with a nice enough guy, but it has been a disaster for the Charlotte Lucases and pretending the two are the same doesn’t help either stop being foolish.
A Lady
Exactly. It is a very good example of elite people foisting their behavioural standards onto average people. The very rich, the very upper class, the very beautiful, the very clever, will always do well. Feminism has arguably been privileged women encouraging women with much less to offer to make foolish choices in life.
Jack/Remaxd:
I tend to doubt seriously whether women—in our culture, at least—feel even as much love for men or anybody else as you described. I haven’t seen much evidence that they love anybody other than themselves. I think that you’re right, though: envoking jealousy in other women is part of their motivation, but at bottom women pursue relationships solely to promote their own sense of superiority over others (whether that is men, other women, or children depends on the individual female involved).
The main reason women pursue inferior men isn’t because they seem them as ‘alphas’ or ‘betas’. Those concepts have too much of a positive connotation to appeal to the average female ego. They pursue thugs and jerks because those men are really weaklings—usually totally dependent upon female enabling—and because she can feel morally superior to him. Metrosexuals and manginas appeal to them for the same reasons; they are easy for anyone to despise as inferiors. And the same is true with muscle-bound dumbbells—if she feels smarter and considers him dependent on her, she wants him. Real men, on the other hand, she treats like garbage and cuts ‘down to size’ for the same reasons.
It’s never a question of loving a male with them; only with wanting one for her own selfish uses, whatever those uses might be. The only certain factor is that the interests of the man involved are very much irrelevant to her. Remember that women in our culture pride themselves on ‘not needing a man’ for anything whatsoever; and that a relationship is merely either like an entitlement program or a necessary evil to be endured for some short-term gain she has planned for herself.
Speaking for myself, I’ve more and more come to disbelieve that women in our culture are even attracted to men sexually. I see less and less proof that sex means anything at all to most women; other than a price they have to pay for a relationship. Just look at the terminology used for the sexual act: ‘getting laid’; ‘putting out’; ‘giving it up’; ‘knocked up’; and more vulgar terms—all of which carry the double-entendre of either being cheated or fulfilling some other unpleasant obligation. Contrast those with the older English terms like ‘knowledge’;’penetration’; ‘conception’; ‘fruit-bearing’; &c. All these carry the connotation of an joining of intellectual powers for the purposes of production. But these are foreign concepts to the narcissism and egomania prevalent in women today.
I enjoy the expressions “putting out” and “giving it up”. They suggest surrender to me and sound sexy.
I want a grown-up relationship with a woman. I believe I have one with my wife, a lot of the time. But where decent men go wrong is in thinking that the mature reationship and mutuality come first. They don’t. First you have to get respect. Then the mutuality flourishes. Once you both know where you stand, you can relate as adults. Feminists don’t understand this, because it is a paradox.
“Eric: It’s never a question of loving a male with them; only with wanting one for her own selfish uses, whatever those uses might be.”
Unfortunately I think this is true with many women today, possibly most. I think it’s also true of many men. I mentioned the definition of love a while back, and nobody responded. If “love” is a transaction for women, what is it for men? What does it mean when a man loves? If women want men only for personal gain, what do men want women for?
I’m asking this as a real-live NAWALT; I have loved and stood by my husband through all kinds of setbacks and crises. If I were to tally up all that I have gained (excluding our son) through my marriage , without love it wouldn’t amount to much. Materially, I could have done nearly as well on my own, and I had more than one opportunity to do much “better” with different men. My primary “use” for the man I married, was love – to give it, receive it and share it.
“First you have to get respect. Then the mutuality flourishes. Once you both know where you stand, you can relate as adults. Feminists don’t understand this, because it is a paradox.”
That was just about perfect.
Women crave a man we can follow with confidence. Like children we test boundaries, checking for inconsistencies; when we find none, we feel safe. THAT is an environment which fosters maturity and mutual respect.
“Feminism has arguably been privileged women encouraging women with much less to offer to make foolish choices in life.”
This.
When I was a young man (u.Der 21, to be exact), I worked for a Korean family. One
day, when his wife wasn’t at work, my boss gave me three tips to keep a woman.
1. Do not marry under the age of thirty. Use the next decade to learn at least 1 immutable skill. If necessary, have small flings with easy girls or save up for a high-class prostitute, but don’t date seriously.
2. After the age of 30, choose a woman with as few partners as possible, preferably 1 or less. Make sure that she knows how to keep a house (saving money/using it wisely, knows how to cook well, is tidy and neat without being a clean freak, etc.)
3. Always remember, women and orgasms are like two ships in the fog. Use the skills that yiu learned from prostitutes and practiced on the easy girl to keep your wife happy. Even a stupid woman will think twice about leaving a man who’s good in bed and keeps a roof over her head, but an intelligent one will second guess everything if she enjoys herself more than her husband.
Long story short: I can open my email account right now and read hundreds of messages from former lovers, even though most of yhem have since married and I never reply. Women think that men are always horny due to our tendency to have random erections, men who “know” women know that even a frigid woman is hotter than all but the most alpha men.
From Bob.
While this article Pastor Driscoll wrote is terrible, I want to say that I am very familiar with his books and I’ve listened to a great deal of his sermons, and he is an excellent pastor, although clearly not perfect. His book on pornography and his sermons on finding a wife I would actually recommend to young men
I was curious so I googled it. I found this: http://theresurgence.com/books/porn_again_christian/ch5#2
Question: I am much hornier than my wife and need sex far more often than she does. […]
Answer: […] Lastly, your wife’s lack of interest is likely indicative of your failings as her husband to love and initiate with her outside of the bedroom. […]
Question: My wife wants sex more than I do, what should I do?
Answer: Don’t tell your buddies or they will mock you incessantly for the rest of your life after staring at you blankly without blinking for about an hour in total silence. Do have sex with your wife as often as she likes and thank God.
So, if the woman is less horny, then it’s the man’s fault (and the problem is serious). If the man is less horny, it’s like: “Shut up, you whiner. Do whatever you wife says and don’t say anything to anybody. Thank God”.
This guy’s an idiot, Bob. Sorry, but he’s an idiot.
@ A Lady
Typically marry well? According to feminist drive & ideology?
Berlusconi & his twenty year younger mother of his children?
Hugh Hefner & his wife(s)?
Kobe Bryant & the size of the rock he had to buy off his wife over the incident with the Colorado schiz?
Catherine Zeta Jones & the pre-nup for every affair Mikey boy has, Cathy get a specified millions present?
Oh, you must mean Juanita Bynum’s “No More Sheets” million dollar marriage…. droll
“Pastor” Driscoll, a man needs marriage like he needs a hole in the head. Now go back to your toys and leave the relationship advice to grown-ups like Dalrock.
Suz:
First, I would point out that you’re correct in that many men have the same problems. The difference is, though, our culture is heavily female-dominated; hence, it’s largely women who are making the relationship choices. And the kinds of me that you’re describing don’t seem to have any especial difficulties either in finding wives/girlfriends, or making children with them.
To answer your other question, what love means for a an average man pretty much follows its traditional definitions and characteristics. In my experience, the men are the ones who are empathetic, giving, and sacrificing, and value their women as someone special. Today’s women, in contrast have no concept of any of any of this. IOW, men are seeking completion and unity in a relationship, whereas women (who should reciprocate) are only in it for themselves.
Suz:
“Women crave a man we can follow with confidence. Like children, we test boundaries, &c.”
This may have been true in earlier generations, but today’s women want men to do all the following. The mentality of modern women is more like Amazons than like traditional women’s views. Women want to defeat men at all costs.
MaMu1977:
Good advice with caveat: it works with Korean women! I don’t think there’s much anyone can do to make an American girl into a good wife, mother or even a decent girlfriend.
“Women want to defeat men at all costs.”
Eric, we think we do because that’s what we’ve been taught, yet we’re miserable when we succeed. By “crave” I don’t mean “want,” I mean “need.”
This is why we go for “alphas” and end up with jerks. THEY DISPLAY POWER. In jerks, that power is a false front; they don’t dominate, they domineer. Because that’s all they’ve got. We’re looking for strong benevolent domination (a man who will sacrifice to preserve and protect what he possesses) and at first glance domination and domineering look similar. We see a power display and it blows our circuits. We tolerate any degradation for it, deluding ourselves and hoping that it might be the real deal. We’d rather die than admit that we need to be “owned,” because that’s not permitted by feminism, but we can’t stop ourselves from trawling for domineering assholes and hoping to pick up a “real man” among them. Our need for a dominant mate runs far deeper than cultural norms and social engineering.
Feminism, combined with the low-risk lifestyle afforded by surplus resources, has neutered men and taught them to be weak. In this environment women CAN “defeat” men, and we’re taught that we are supposed to, so we do. We consciously devote ourselves to dominating men, yet on a visceral level we despise men who can be dominated. Since the option of acting like real women is socially unacceptable, we try to achieve satisfaction by being the best damn non-women we can be. It never occurs to most of us that we’d be happy if we turned our backs on society and lived as we were designed to. We just keep forging ahead in the wrong direction – the hamster on speed. Women are frequently domineering (we rarely have what it takes to dominate much of anything) but this is almost always a matter of shit testing. Again, we can’t admit this, so we say we’re just acting like strong modern women, but what would really satisfy us (unbeknownst to us) is a man who can override our attempts at dominance, and dominate US.
And what “real man” has the opportunity to display his masculinity in the modern world? There are no dragons to slay, and sensible men don’t waste their energy posturing. Deeply “male” prowess has become recreational (except in the acquisition of money.) Hunting, fighting and competition are leisure activities, and we deride them as frivolous. The exception here is among military, cops and firefighters. Women absolutely drool over professional he-men because like assholes, those men act powerful. We fall for false (or real) displays of power EVERY TIME, because we need powerful men. PUAs know this and use it to their advantage, easily dazzling us. We’re stupid that way. The fact that we chase posturing pricks is all the proof you need that we’re lying through our teeth when we say we want “subservient” men. What we really want is strong men who have the courage to whip out their dicks and show us they’ve got what it takes to keep us safe. Honorable men who actually do have “what it takes” usually obey the rules though, so they hesitate and lose out. “Bad boys” never hesitate; they don’t care about having what it takes because they have no desire to protect or preserve anything but themselves. They just want to get laid. They don’t even have to me misogynistic; they want what they want and we’re giving it away. No harm, no foul.
“Whipping it out” is the only time-tested way to win a woman’s devotion. And yes, we are as capable of devotion as men are. That devotion will last a lifetime if the man is genuinely dominant, not just domineering. Social engineering cannot override biology.
And thus, why women are monsters and should have no rights at all, least of all the ability to vote. Woman will degrade and destroy any society they are allowed to do anything except be dominated and have no rights at all. I welcome the death of liberal democracy for this very reason.
F*ck, chuck and enjoy the decline.
Suz:
“By crave I don’t mean want; I mean need.”
But the same education teaches women that ‘women don’t need a man’. They pride themselves on being dominant and the men being helpless.
“This is why we go for alpha jerks. They display power.”
No they don’t. They are weaklings who posture as displaying power. Women see through that facade because feminine intuition is stronger than in men; and they want such men because of that very weakness. Most of these so-called ‘alpha jerks’ are utterly dependent on women. They couldn’t support themselves at all unless women took care of and enabled them. That’s why some them turn into so-called ‘stalkers’. The desperation of such men isn’t love; it’s need because they cannot make it on their own. They aren’t powerful at all. The same is true of why these same women who claim to be impressed by ‘alpha thugs’ supposed masculinity also pursue metrosexual weaklings and manginas.
“Feminism has neutered men and taught them to be weak.”
I would argue that women are teaching men to be weak; since weak men are rewarded with both sex and fatherhood for their weakness. The truly strong men are emasculated and denigrated by women whenever they have they opportunity.
“We’re taught to dominate men, but on a viceral level despise men who can be dominated.”
It’s worse than that. Women are taught to despise men regardless of whether than can be dominated or not. In fact, most women regard men as subhuman and unnecessary for anything more than sperm donors, at best. I will agree with you though that feminism, by its inherent illogic, forces women into contradictory goals.
“What can really satisfy us is a man who can override our dominance and dominate us.”
OMG, how I wish that were true! I think it was true in our culture once, and still holds with traditional women in other cultures. But in our culture, women have the mentality of Amazons. I literally know of no American female personally who fits a description like this. Most of them not only want to dominate men, they aren’t satisified until the man is utterly defeated. That advert that Dalrock posted recently with the men doing menial chores while the woman looked down from her throne is the kind of relationship most contemporary women really want.
“Women drool over the professional he-men just like they do over assholes, because these men project power.”
On the contrary, those men such as military, cops, firefighters, &c. have among the highest divorce rates demographically. Yet FBI stats say that an ‘abused’ woman will return, on average, seven times to the abusive spouse. I’ve seen plenty of females (in fact this has happened more than once in my own former dating experiences), where the new guy fought or stood down the abusive ex-boyfriend. The good guys never win, there either; the women invariably dump them and run straight back to the abuser. There you see two distinct displays of power: one by a strong ‘real man’ the other by a posturing thug. And the posturing wins the woman’s hand every time!
“Bad boys don’t care about having what it takes, &c.”
I’ve likewise never seen these bad boys requiring either much courage or confidence to pursue women. From what I’ve observed, women pretty much pursue them and the only ‘relationship problem’ most bad boys I know of have is decided whom they’ll sleep with on a given night; or who to call when they’re in jail, or need a bill paid, &c.
“Women are just as capable of devotion…that devotion will last a liftime if the man is sufficiently dominant.”
Women end relationships at 10x the rate of men ending them. It’s because they lack any sense of devotion that they can do this easily without the emotional stress that men suffer at such times. Men see love as a bonding experience; women do not typically bond with anybody else. That’s why a man can be crushed by a broken relationship, often up to the point of suicide; and a woman can move ‘on to the next guy’ without even a shrug.
Suz, that is all fine, but it seems women have succeeded all too well in ridding the male population of these ideal men.
“OMG, how I wish that were true!”
It is true, biologically, in our brain chemistry. Our culture has been beating these instincts down from the moment we’re born, but they exist. You see it all over the planet, except in “first world” countries. Our brains have not evolved as fast as our technology.
“They are weaklings who posture as displaying power.” – yes!
“Women see through that facade because feminine intuition is stronger than in men”
We do see through it but it’s not intuition, it’s experience, and we choose to ignore it. We want the fairy tale; we were raised to believe we deserve it. We need strong men. We are unhappy with men we perceive as weak. We beat them down and discard them. If we wanted weak men, we’d keep them once we had them under our thumbs. Instead we dump them to chase “strong” men. We’ve been demanding more power for decades, yet the more power we get the unhappier we become. And since we Grrrlz can’t possibly be mistaken, we blame men.
When the feminists decided that “equality” wasn’t enough,they needed ways to control men; one of their tools was to demand that men stop acting powerful. Men, long in the habit of accommodating female foolishness, acquiesced. Most men didn’t see the long term harm in it, and “it’s barbaric,” or “it’s no longer necessary because we’re so civilized,” sounded rational. Because of this, displays of genuine masculine power are rare. Since women are desperate for powerful, high status men, we’ll take anything that remotely resembles male power, even when we know it’s probably fake. We’re drawn to it instinctively. This is why Game works consistently. Game is a display of power, whether that power is real or fake. It’s a useful tool that good men dropped when they were ordered to, figuring they could rely on their “goodness” to attract women. Assholes didn’t drop it, and for the most part, they’re the only ones still using it. And they’re getting the women.
“Suz, that is all fine, but it seems women have succeeded all too well in ridding the male population of these ideal men.” This is true as well. Feminism has suppressed the natural good in just about everybody.
Men have three choices: continue on as victims, GTOW until society implodes, or manipulate individual women, one on one, into embracing our natural role and rejecting our indoctrination. That last one is difficult and uncommon, but it’s possible, for a man who wants a family. Men, women and children, like dogs, can usually be trained. Ask any happily married man who uses Game to keep his wife in line, er, happy.
Man-Up 2.0 is less likely to catch than “Game” is, so I doubt you will have much luck convincing anyone to take up the mantle of game to use for a marriage in this day and age. If I believed in “Game” at all, nobody except a total mangina would use “Game” to find a wife. If someone uses “Game” to their advantage, they sure as hell aren’t going to use it to man up and marry aging spinster sluts, that’s for sure.
I’m not going to touch the rest of your post about wanting fried-ice, because dominant men are not the ones women are selecting for. Men are a slave class, his resources, status and protection only exist to satisfy female. An “alpha” as you describe him makes a poor slave, and would be passed over. A weak, pathetic man who can be tricked into thinking “Game” has allowed him to dominate his wife and make an excellent slave, as some of the Man-up 2.0 hucksters popping up on this corner of the internet seem to think they are alpha because their wife complains LESS. An “alpha” cannot be enslaved and will not be a useful slave. This has all been discussed by Esther Villar. What you are describing is essentially what Susan Walsh has been trying to pass off as “Game” for some time, and it has been rejected. A better beta might be useful for the female, but he is a slave. You can pretty it up with as much “alpha” praise as you like as women march him off to be lobotomized.
Isn’t Esther Vilar a woman? Why would you take anything a lying, deceitful monster says seriously?
Have you read the book?
I’m heading to bed and I have a busy day tomorrow so I might miss your reply but essentially my response to whatever you post will be “Stopped clock is right twice per day”.
I’ve read some of it. I suppose the old “stopped clock” thing is as good a response as any, though.
That said, I do wonder what you think of this guy’s (negative) review of Vilar’s book. He’s not an MRA, but he apparently doesn’t like women much more than you do:
http://notanmra.blogspot.com/2011/07/manipulated-man-by-esther-villain.html
Suz, ybm, I find Game does work. I do well in my marriage and get the level of service and respect I want.
ybm, I think you mistake my intent. I’m not trying to convince anybody to get married. In fact I have a young adult son and I hope he doesn’t marry. I had reservations about bringing him into this world, and that was twenty years ago! I don’t need grandkids at his expense.
Clearly you’ve given up all hope, but there are intelligent men who haven’t. If they have any hope of catching and keeping the last five decent women in America, they need to approach the process with their eyes wide open. Since opting out isn’t their first choice, that leaves “servant” or “master.” Broad generalizations about all of the conflicting things women think we want, are useless to a man who wants to become a master. He needs to understand the most primitive needs and fears that drive women. A servant-husband provides for his wife’s psychological needs and tries to cater to her wants. A master-husband makes sure she KNOWS her needs are met, and he gives her what she “wants” at HIS discretion, not in response to her demands. It’s not a coincidence that this concept is similar to how one raises a good dog or an unspoiled child. It’s training, reward/punishment based behavior modification. It’s positive manipulation and leadership, and it comes naturally to some men, but even in them it has been suppressed. They must re-learn male behavior.
You’re giving women far too much credit for intelligence and critical thought; we’re like sheep – we are easily led and easily manipulated. You might have noticed that sleazy jerks do it every day.
David, I don’t think my husband intentionally uses Game with me, but he might as well – he is very stubborn in a quiet sort of way. He’s even tempered, immune guilt trips, and he doesn’t tolerate BS from anyone. Fortunately for both of us I’m pretty flexible and laid back. I’m not spoiled but I am loved. I’d be lost with a man that I could jerk around.
Suz, I have always had some natural Game. I sort of knew some of it intuitively. I have always been deeply suspicious of feminism, and never believed what we are told about women today. It never rang true. I am old enough to have got some of the old messages about what really works with women. I am an Australian too and gender relations are better here.
Pingback: How should Christian men respond to slutty women? Marry them! | Dalrock
Esther Vilar is brilliant…
Must reading if you youre into MRA & mens rights … shes a radical activist, like all good radical activists her interpretation of mens rights gives serious insights into society & the male
@hurp
The analysis of this guy (sounds a lot like the infamous wimminz) is poor, to say the least. And it is not that I don’t like women, far from is as I sleep with them with regularity. I can’t blame a woman for acting as she does anymore than I can blame a cat for scratching me if I rub its back paws or a scorpion for stiinging a frog.
@Suz
“You’re giving women far too much credit for intelligence and critical thought; we’re like sheep – we are easily led and easily manipulated. You might have noticed that sleazy jerks do it every day.”
I’m more inclined to think it is men who are more easily manipulated. Those sleazy jerks are the easiest to manipulate, and make a nice whipping post to feel superior to. We both agree that protection, resources and status are what women like, not the man himself. Sleazy men like me lack a moral high-ground to the average women, usually we are thought to be stupid too, for a lot of us that’s absolutely true. Selecting thugs and cads allows women to attain resources as easily as possible, witha moral high-ground to lord over them with.
The analysis of this guy (sounds a lot like the infamous wimminz) is poor, to say the least.
Really? How so? He’s an anti-feminist too, surely that ought to give him some credibility.
ybm, I get your point about men being easy to manipulate, but I think for the most part, it’s because men think they have to put up with it, and they don’t really see the harm in it. Most people (of both genders) are too mentally lazy to figure out exactly WHAT women are thinking, which is why irrational women are rarely challenged, even by other women. Most men know they’re being manipulated, even though they don’t understand exactly how. They’re wary, but they go along with it. Women are a cinch to manipulate because they never see it coming. They think they’re too smart to be fooled, and that nobody would dare. A reasonably intelligent person can twist a woman around his or her little finger, and she will never even know it. Everything she does under someone else’s control, she thinks is her own idea. She will rationalize her actions subconsciously, totally unaware of the process, because women rationalize constantly. You should meet my boss. She’s a rabid feminist control freak whose hamster wheel could power a small city. I can ignore her crap most of the time, but when she starts to push, I can have her eating out of my hand within ten minutes. (usually I just bark back.) Smart women don’t usually manipulate other women because we avoid the types who need to be reined in, and most men don’t realize they even have the option.
That’s the “game” I’m advocating. It’s not hard, it’s just rare, and men who are good at it don’t often share their wisdom. I’m a little disappointed in the manosphere for it’s strong focus on PUAs; Manipulation comes naturally to so many of them anyway. IMO, the men who desperately NEED this knowledge are the ones who want to marry, or are married and want to stay married. They need to be able to manage their wives (managed wives are happy wives, especially when they don’t know they’re being managed) and they need to raise their sons and daughters with this mindset.
You’ll never catch me preaching against MWGTOW, but bagging babes IS recreation after all. Ethically manipulating women makes strong marriages and happy families.
Dalrock, can you recommend sources for learning about LTR and marriage game?
“We both agree that protection, resources and status are what women like, not the man himself.”
I think when a woman FEEL secure in the resources she’s receiving, LIKES those resources, and respects the man who provides them, she will like the man himself. Indeed she will grow to love him. This kind of love comes as a surprise to women because we don’t expect it. We think “love” is that romantic fairy tale crap, and when that starts to fade, we bail, never giving real love a chance to grow. I think most women are capable of it, but Western women don’t know it exists so we don’t pursue it. We think those devoted wives in other cultures are pathetic, unhappy slaves with no options. We don’t realize they still have the best option of all.
There isn’t much to disagree with in your post, mostly nomenclature. Fact is that this corner of the internet, the Roissysphere, Altersphere, Game 2.0, “lifestyle game” whatever you want to call it is very small, and largely outside the mainstream of thought. The closest people we have to “mainstream” in this corner of the internet is Tom Leykis and possible Paul Elam, neither one of them have anything to do with game.
For the majority of men, game is, and always shall be, routines and strategies envisioned by Mystery, DeAngelo, and Strauss etc. Game/PUA is about routines. This part of the internet is very, very enamoured with the idea of “inner game” which simply doesn’t register for viewers of Keys to the VIP. Game is pickup routines, and call me oldschool but that’s what I think game is. I’ve discussed this quite a bit with BP and *He who shall not be named* and I agree with them that “Lifestyle game” really is anything but, its simply learning not to be an annoying fuckhead when around women. I learned more about confidence and “inner game” from my stints in Toastmasters than game bloggers. MGTOW is an extension of this, and I see the appeal is ghosting far more than Game/Pan-up 2.0 as elucidated in this corner of the internet. I feel that marriage game is simply, as one well known blogger put it “building a better beta” that can still be manipulated by women, still lorded over by a misandrist judicial and criminal justice system, still the victim of sex-based discrimination. But hey, his wife still wears pumps in the bedroom and sucks his dick, so it must be all good bro!
Game/Man-up 2.0 doesn’t want to change anything, that’s what my boggle is with it.
@Suz
“I think when a woman FEEL secure in the resources she’s receiving, LIKES those resources, and respects the man who provides them, she will like the man himself. Indeed she will grow to love him.”
We’ve arrived back in familiar territory and last time I amicably said we would haev to agree to disagree, I’ll restate that as I fundamentally do not believe a woman can love a man as a cconscious being as a man loves a woman as a conscious being.
ybm
“But hey, his wife still wears pumps in the bedroom and sucks his dick, so it must be all good bro!”
Who told you?!
@Suz
“I think when a woman FEEL secure in the resources she’s receiving, LIKES those resources, and respects the man who provides them, she will like the man himself. Indeed she will grow to love him.”
YBM is right, this is a basic concept women simply dont understand
Women do not know how to bond with a man, women dont know how & will never know how to form a true relationship with a man
Women dont know how to connect with a man
Women fall in love with a mans status, his ability to raise her social status, & her own social class structure
Women fall in love with hypergamy, men fall in love with the morality of loving a woman, the illusory of purity in a womans weaknesses, she’s weak so she must be meek & humble …
Women fall in love with social status at first sight
Providing women with resources, only makes them fall in love with the context of your ability to provide those resources
Act out of the context of providing resources, & she falls out of love
Women dont know how to fall in love outside of a biological social context
Which is why women want a family
Men want a relationship
Men want the woman, women fall in love with everything but the man
Women fall in love with social status at first sight
Btw this is also why peacocking, & pre-selection work so well
A mans ability to raise her status in a crowd of people, is electrifying to a woman, the genus of the gina tingle …
Well Rmaxd, now I have to ask how YOU define love. I know many women, albeit mostly older women, who deeply love their husbands. I’m one of them. I think it takes women far longer than men to reach this state of emotional intimacy, which surpasses everything material. Please don’t call it gratitude. I’m sensing a bit of a double standard here. You seem to be describing love as a deep emotion for men, but a transaction for women. Plenty of women describe it as exactly the opposite, and I don’t believe them either. Deep mutual love is impossible at the beginning of a marriage, but it can grow if it’s allowed to. Usually it’s the woman who jumps ship before that happens, but not always. Love only happens with emotional maturity, and I think most women are far too emotionally insecure to feel love at a young age. But when they have a solid “transaction” in which their needs (physical and emotional) are well met, they can lose the desperation that once drove them, and start to really see, accept, and love the men they married. At some point every married woman realizes that her marriage is not the fairy tale she was raised to expect. Many women freak out and take off, sure that their fairy tale exists somewhere. And many women realize that what they have beats the hell out of any fairy tale, and that compared to their flawed, complex, loving husbands, Prince Charming is a shallow stuffed shirt.
I’d like to see the scientific proof that women cannot love, and men can. Are there some brain chemistry phenomena that occur in men but not in women, that scientists call “love?”
“…this is a basic concept women simply dont understand”
How can you actually know what a woman is capable of understanding? Aren’t you playing both sides? Not being a woman, how can you understand us any more than we can understand you? Are you analyzing behavior and saying that “loving” behavior in women is motivated only by avarice, but “loving” behavior in men can be interpreted as “love?” If so, that’s not rational, it’s pure bias. You’re a rational man; what am I missing?
@Suz
Women fall in love with a mans social context
If you’re husband stopped acting alpha, if he didnt act within the context of being a high status male, you’d fall out of love with him, its that simple
He also knows, most especially his acts have to be socially approved
What you dont seem to understand he conciously acts to keep you in love with him, he knows what keeps you in love with him … he also understands he requires certain acts to keep you deeply in love with him
In short he knows your love, like most women’s, isnt unconditional, it is socially conditional
In short you’re in love with your own hypergamy,not him
Again I dont expect you to understand, as the concept of love is simply designed to hide the true nature of women
Love is simply the humanisation of a womans hypergamous biology
Check Athol Kays site for the proof …
Suz
I think when a woman FEEL secure in the resources she’s receiving, LIKES those resources, and respects the man who provides them, she will like the man himself. Indeed she will grow to love him. This kind of love comes as a surprise to women because we don’t expect it.
Of course by the time that happens, if he doesn’t know anything about Game and female psychology – i.e. he’s the average man – he will have gone through so many shit tests and had to deal with so many attempts at emotional manipulation that he may well have very little trust in her at all. Some women basically “shit test to destruction”. Then they wonder what happened.
A lot of people, and a whole lot of women, don’t realize that words actually mean things, and there are some things they can say that a man will not ever, as in never, forget. Every time she opens her mouth, he will remember things that she said – there is no way to “unsay” words. Trust-demolition is not overcome over night. Do a good enough job, with enough effort, and you’ve destroyed his ability to trust you beyond the superficial maybe permanently. Yeah, I’m sure that nice, hot rush of anger and self-righteousness feels goood. Will the memory of it keep you warm years later? Especially if he decides that it all just isn’t worth the trouble?
A while back I wondered if the increase in BD/SM activity was in part due to some women needing that much Alpha , anything less was just too beta. Now I’m looking at all the daughters of divorce, and wondering if some women are just extremely insecure due to their parents divorce, so very insecure that they just have to keep pick-pick-picking away at shit tests, in order to reassure themselves that “he won’t leave me” – and in the process make themselves so unlovable, and even unlikable, that they drive the man to distraction. Or out the door.
AR, you are so right.
Rmaxd, it goes deeper than that. I love my husband because of the person he is, because I believe he’s the kind of person who can love me so deeply he’s willing to work at our relationship. When in recent years he went through a long, deep depression, I was furious at him for not acknowledging and dealing with his problem. I was terrified, but I still loved him deeply. I could have bailed; some say I should have because of the way he started treating our son. I had to ask myself if I would sacrifice my child for my husband. I could have supported myself if I left, and I’d only get child support for a few years, but it would have destroyed him. I couldn’t do that to him. I felt compassion for him and I loved him, even though I was angry at him for abdicating his “responsibility” to us. I rarely cry about anything, but I cried myself to sleep more than once during those years. I sacrificed for him, not knowing if the man I married would ever come back. How is that not love?
“In short he knows your love, like most women’s, isnt unconditional, it is socially conditional”
How is HIS love not “conditional?” A man wouldn’t do “certain acts to keep you deeply in love with him” if he wasn’t getting something out of it. MWGTOW don’t bother with those acts because they don’t think the payoff is worth it. Love involves gratitude but it is not entirely gratitude. It involves sacrifice, but it is not entirely sacrifice. It involves mutual exchange but it is not entirely mutual exchange. Do you see what I’m getting at? A man’s love has all the same “transaction” properties as a woman’s love. Why are you choosing to see them differently, rather than measuring both objectively, by the same standards? I don’t doubt that men love more readily than women, and possibly with less “to gain” from it; i.e. men are “satisfied” with less. It doesn’t logically follow that women don’t or can’t love. It means that women’s love is far more rare.
Is a woman’s love capricious because women change their feelings to suit their needs? They will do anything, and justify it, to meet their needs? The thing is, our deepest emotional need is to be cherished, and we are VERY emotional beings. Once we are dead certain that our deepest needs have been met and will continue to be met (by a man who would sacrifice anything for us) we are content and want nothing more. We are insecure and we need lots of assurance that our needs are being met, because our “hindbrains” know that we could lose it all in a minute. Shit tests are how we get that assurance. It’s stupid and we take them much farther than necessary, BECAUSE WE ARE AFRAID. And we do it wrong all the time by nagging men to give us what we think we want, since we are afraid or ashamed to admit how badly we need what only a man can offer us. That is pride in direct conflict with deep instinctive need. It suppresses the development of love, but it doesn’t mean we are inherently incapable of love. It just means we F-ing stupid and irrational.
@ybm, yes we do disagree. “I fundamentally do not believe a woman can love a man as a cconscious being.” You have no idea how much I respect you for stating that as a belief instead of as a proven fact. We are both biased in our opinions, influenced by our own personal observations and experiences. The “evidence” we recognize supports our opinions.
@Suz
Suz let me just say, my comments are in no way personal, or meant as a crtiscism of you as a person, so please avoid taking them personally.
I enjoy your posts, & appreciate your willingness to understand women as a whole, I hope you take my comments in that light.
You also need to understand Dalrock has been in your exact same position & seen his wife fall out of love, precisely because he no longer fulfilled his social context of an Alpha
You can see literally ALL of the husbands & wives falling out of love, after 10 or 20 years of marriage & deeply mistaking their own biological need for hypergamy for true love, on Athol Kays site alone
Women dont fall in love with men, they fall in love with their social context, their social status & social scarcity
Women use social logic, men use logic
Your statement proves this basic point …
“I was furious at him for not acknowledging and dealing with his problem.”
This is the normal response for a woman in love with her hypergamy & not the man
Your social context prevents you from feeling empathy for him
Wheres your empathy & love for a man with years of depression?
If you love him so much, why are you stating YOUR actions? Why are you stating your needs & your son are worth more then his years of depression ?
Why are we hearing about YOUR sleepless nights & tears, instead of HIS years of depression & HIS suffering?
Where are his examples of suffering?
Why are his examples of suffering NOT EVEN in your comments?
In short Why are you trying to compete with his sufferring?
Your own actions prove your inability to see him as nothing but a social context for fulfilling your own need for status & social voyeurism
Your biological need for status whoring through your husband & son, speaks volumes in your comments
It’s not a comfortable fact, but your bonding to your husband, the biology behind it is obvious
Women pay a heavy price for hypergamy
Their inability to bond to a man outside of a social context is one of them
A womans anger & emotion runs on hypergamy, not empathy
Also women are NOT insecure, they dont know they need security, its a massive differentiation
Which is WHY women call for women & children first
IF women were insecure, theyd call for MEN & children first, they’d submit to mans ability to provide security in a lifeboat
Women shit test & fitness test, to break a man, to make him fit into a role of matriarchy
Women create inefficient female matriarchial social networks, which is why they shit test men & act like bitches
Shit testing & acting batshit crazy, are simply forms of using their husband as status whoring
Pingback: Suz says: About Dominant Men « Complementarian Loners
@Suz
IF you were in love with him, & not your own hypergamy, why did his depression cause you to QUESTION your marriage, instead of offering him the empathy he obviously needed?
We can understand the need for tough love, but to QUESTION your own marriage for 5+ years, over prolonged depression is borderline sociopathic
Is being a sociopath all women have to offer to a man over years of depression?
Why is HIS suffering grounds for divorce?
Doesnt HE have even MORE cause for divorce, PRECISELY because you almost divorced him for his depression, instead of offering much needed support & understanding?
Again this is more about turning yourself into the victim, when it’s quite clear, he’s a victim of depression & your thoughts of deserting him when he needed you most …
Again thnx for making my point for me… feel free to rationalise the above …
Rmaxd knocked that shit out of the park. That was beautiful writing man.
Rmaxd, I don’t take it personally, because I didn’t tell the whole story. I can see that from your perspective, it looks mercenary. I don’t blame you for missing my point, since I didn’t make it very clearly. I never would have even thought about bailing for my own good, because without him my life would not be good.
I didn’t want to go into a lot of detail, but HE considered bailing long before I did. A few years before all of this, Better Half was laid of 5 years short of retiring form a well-paid job. He was a trooper about it. He didn’t get depressed, he didn’t get bitter, he never took his anger out on his family in any way. He got a job paying half as much, worked twice as hard, and he never lost his self respect. Needless to say, my respect for him (which was always pretty deep) grew to amazing proportions. After all of that, something else happened (an outside influence) that apparently threatened his identity, and perhaps his masculinity. We got through it together, by sheer force of will, but then the depression hit. THEN he got bitter, he was angry, he felt like a failure, even though that particular crisis resulted in a modest financial windfall. He hated his job, he REALLY hated the former friend who crossed him, he spent most of his time trying to distract himself by watching TV. All of his contentment and optimism was GONE. I didn’t tell you about his pain because I feel a bit disloyal exposing the details of his weakness. I would have preferred to keep it general. You probably don’t know many women who hesitate to talk about their husbands’ weaknesses. I sure don’t know many.
The reason I discussed MY feelings is because I never “fell out of love” with him, in spite of my hurt and anger. And loving him made the hurt even worse. The only reason I even thought about leaving was because he started verbally abusing our son, and it escalated fairly quickly. (And I’m not talking about being strict, I’m talking about being MEAN.) I could have lived with his pain and with the pain it was causing me, but I could NOT let him destroy our child. Better Half is the best father I’ve ever met. He’s strict but loving. I could go on for hours about how wonderfully he raised our son, and how much he loves that young man. (When we sent him off to the USMC, BH had a much harder time with it than I did.) But during his depression, he turned into another person. He started speaking to our son with a tone of contempt I’ve NEVER heard him use in 20 years! (All the arguments we’ve had, and he never once spoke to me like that.) This was a happy, secure 15 year old kid, and the most solid thing in his life had transformed into a monster! I even broke my ultimate rule of parenting: Mom + Dad = United Front. Always. I actually had to explain depression to my teenage son and ask him to “be mature about it,” because at the moment, his father didn’t have it in him. I had to scare the living shit out of him by explaining that yes, his dad still loved him, but his dad was suffering, ill, and temporarily (I hoped, but I didn’t say so) unable to be the father he once was.
And do you think I didn’t feel his pain? It was KILLING me to know that nothing I could do, or not do, would give him peace. I tired to reach him and I couldn’t. I encouraged him, I tried to build his self confidence back up, I gave him space, I tried everything to help him, for years. I never made his depression about me and my pain, because if he left I could have survived without him (physically, anyway.) And I knew that his pain was much worse than mine. He was miserable, and because of my empathy, I was in pain FOR HIM. That’s what empathy is – I had suffered depression in the past and I KNEW what he was going through. I was angry at him for not taking my knowledge and experience seriously and trying to help himself. And about a year and a half later, he told me that I was right. He could have gone to a doctor and ended his pain in a matter of months, but he chose to do it the hard way. Believe me, he suffered far more than I did, and I hated to see him do that to himself.
It was during this crisis that I realized just how much I love him. Not later, when I was “safe.” The though of having to leave him to protect my child made we physically sick, even though at that time he had next to nothing to offer me. Do you know how many people told me I should leave him because he’d turned into a stranger? It was precisely because he needed me that I couldn’t possibly leave. It’s at times like that when most women realize they DON’T love their husbands, not how much they do. And my pain was made worse by knowing that a divorce would utterly destroy him. I finally had to risk absolutely everything, including his love for me (which I treasure more than anybody will ever know) by putting my foot down. I told him his behavior towards our son had to stop. Yes there was an implied threat; I was desperate. He was furious at me for saying it, but he changed his behavior even though he was still miserable, because he understood the damage he was doing to himself – he could have lost the love and respect of his only child. He never did seek treatment, and he spent the next three years working it out on his own, with my non-stop support. Ironically, explaining my suffering, and how it was aggravated by my love for him, is what feels like “competing with his suffering,” and explaining his suffering feels like I’m seeking “status and social voyeurism.”
I didn’t question my marriage when the going got tough. I had to accept the possibility that a divorce might be the only way I could protect my son. Trust me, it was bad enough that even in the days before no-fault divorce, a divorce would have been granted. Needless to say, this is difficult for me to discuss in so much detail; I wanted you to know why your assessment of my motives was incorrect.
I think it’s interesting that you used the word “sociopathic.” I have grown to suspect I may have the physical brain of a sociopath; I have some rather benign narcissistic tendencies, and when my emotions overwhelm me, I can “turn them off,” set them aside, and become coldly rational. I know I’m not a sociopath though, because I have a VERY strong conscience, and a great deal of compassion and empathy. Possibly too much for my own good, or so I’ve been told.
Enough of the personal.
“Also women are NOT insecure, they dont know they need security, its a massive differentiation”
They don’t know. Consciously. Which is why they’re so arrogant. But subconsciously, they ARE insecure. Women are textbook bullies; they feel small inside so they make a big swaggering show of how tough the are, and they’ve arranged Western society so that they can get away with it.
“Women shit test & fitness test, to break a man, to make him fit into a role of matriarchy”
They try to, but the matriarchy is a myth, based on a complete double standard. It would fail if there were no men. And in non-feminist societies, women also shit test men. They do it because they need reassurance that their husband is the man they need him to be. Because they are insecure.
You’ve made some interesting points dissecting female “love,” and defining it as not love at all, but motivated by, shall we say, less noble sentiments. Where is the objective analysis of male love? It’s been many years since I have studied classical philosophy, but I was left with the impression that the Greeks believed male love is a sort of pure, ethereal, spiritual phenomenon, with no practical or material aspects. Perhaps I’m mistaken. So what is male love, and how is it different from female love? Men need women for practical reasons, just like women need men for practical reasons. Men can produce more children than they can support, and some of those “fatherless” children can survive, even in primitive environments. So men can be compared (at least in part) to fish, who spread their sperm and swim away – no love required. In that instance, there is no material purpose for male love; male love can transcend the “physical.” But when a man VALUES his offspring, he invests in them. He makes sure they have a mother to raise them, and he devotes himself to protecting and feeding them. A man doesn’t have to love his children in order to value them, because preserving them is instinctive. However, the environment in which a child is most likely to survive childhood, and go on to be a productive adult, is a family bound by emotionally intimate, “loving” spousal bonds. Therefore, objectively, the male “love” for the female promotes Measurable Material aspects of species survival, just as does the female “love” for the male. It is equally as mercenary. By this standard, it could easily be argued that if women are incapable of love, so are men. Both genders can survive, and some of their offspring can survive, without it. Love is not necessary to the most basic elements of survival (food, shelter) but it greatly enhances the success of many aspects of survival. Male love has the exact same practical purpose that female love does – successful reproduction, so how is it different? Why do you call this “love” in a man, but “self-interest” in a woman? You can’t have it both ways. Men have a lot to gain by “acting like” they’re in love.
Please address this. I don’t understand how you can treat male love as “undefinable,” but can make a list of reasons why female love doesn’t exist.
Suz how many woman have you known or heard of die for their husband? A stranger?
Is that the definition of love? What you describe is altruism, which is an aspect of love, and it exists in both genders and many species.
Are you familiar with the many cases of pregnant women who die or risk death because they refuse abortions? Female cops? Female military? It happens. The two main reasons it doesn’t happen more often are – 1. Women are less likely than men to be in life-or-death situations/professions, often due to their size and strength. and 2. Women are less likely to attempt to save another if they’re weak enough that they know they can’t succeed.
Of all the men who die saving the lives of others, how many of them know for certain that they won’t survive? They took the risk, but did they choose to die? The tendency to take excessive risks, for love AND everything else, is a big part of the male’s biological makeup.
My two questions stand.
Husband? Not offhand. Strangers? Yes. How is that relevant to the definition of love?
My question has been standing for quite some time now, unanswered:
How does one objectively define “love” wherein males are capable of it and females are not?
@Suz
Its about sacrifice. A man who sacrifices himself for someone else, that’s love. It may not be love of that person specifically but for anyone to die to save another is a GIGANTIC sacrifice. One made overwhelmingly by men. You said “Women are less likely to attempt to save another if they’re weak enough that they know they can’t succeed,” bullshit everyday men face overwhelming odds but we try to rescue weaker people even in the face of certain death. Again love. That’s male love which doesn’t even begin to encapsulate the complexity or the emotion for us. But still you cant help but denigrate men. Claiming woman just don’t have the opportunity to die for men. Or “oh well yall are built to take risks” *shrugs*. Jesus lady you take the cake.
Suz-“They took the risk, but did they choose to die?”
Yes, FUCK YES!!! You dumb cunt. He calculated the risk and leaped.
BTW you are a sociopath.
@Suz
Thnx for the indepth reply suz,
Ill have to make a point by point post later on, as its 2am here …
Love is essentially determined by biology
Biology ensures the context for bonding, the resulting bonding is simply a side effect of the context determined by a persons biology
Contextual triggers determine what a woman bonds with, which in turn give the impression of falling in love
In order for a woman, to stay in love with a man, or bond with a man, the man has to constantly provide the context to continously trigger the bonding chemicals, required for a woman to fall in love with him
In short a woman falls in love with the context behind the triggers a man creates
Women are hypergamous, a social context determines what a woman falls in love with, ie social status, his social worth & persona
Hypergamy requires a social context in order for a woman to bond to a man, ie fall in love
A man with no clear social context, triggers bio-chemical rejection & anti-bonding chemicals
A woman simply does not have the biology to fall in love with a man, as that would require a woman to bond with a man, outside of a social context
Men on the other hand are polygamous, they require no social context to bond directly to a woman, a womans attributes & personality are enough to make a man bond with her
Men are designed to bond with women directly, women are designed to bond according to social context
Basic gender biology 101 …
“One made overwhelmingly by men.” Overwhelmingly, but not exclusively. So what you’re saying is, “A man who sacrifices himself for someone else, that’s love. ” Right? (that’s a direct quote, you’ll notice.) What do you call it when a woman sacrifices herself for someone else?
Did I say women don’t have the opportunity to die for men? No, because they do. I explained why it doesn’t happen often.
” everyday men face overwhelming odds but we try to rescue weaker people even in the face of certain death. Again love. ” Not always love, but always biology. Ask Rmaxd how he defines the ultimate Alpha – it has a lot to do with the inborn need to take risks. (Too bad you can’t ask any Darwin award winners. Man oh man, did some of them feel the need to take risks!) “oh well yall are built to take risks” You’re not? Really? Did you pass high school biology?
Look Junior, You will never meet a woman who supports men more than I do. Maybe a few who do as much, but none more. I despise feminist culture, and I despise many women, not because they are inherently evil or defective – they are not. Western women have despicable attitudes and behaviors because they are ignorant of the facts, and they are prone to make judgments and decisions based upon emotional bias and logical fallacies. I can’t say I have much respect for men who ALSO base their opinions on emotional bias and logical fallacies.
Also, you might want to look up “sociopath” in the dictionary. I think you meant “bitch.”
Rmaxd, maybe I’m having trouble with your terminology. Is “falling in love” the same as “love?” It’s been a long time since I “fell in love,” but I have a hard time believing that I don’t love my husband, whether he “earns” it or not. I certainly don’t discount the biological aspect of it, but isn’t love more complex than that? It’s more than the initial bonding, isn’t it? Where does this account for affection, loyalty, gratitude, shared history, shared children, emotional security, commitment, personal honor? And what about (rare) isolated couples, where there is little or no “social status?” Again, I’m not talking about the initial “falling in love,” I’m talking about long-term love that builds up in layers.
And I have to ask, if women aren’t capable of “love,” and never have been, why do men see that as a problem? We can’t write our names in the snow with our pee either. Big deal. You can’t get pregnant. Most of us don’t hold that against you. Why do men expect the impossible, and what should they realistically expect instead? Love as you describe it, doesn’t seem to have much to do with the kind of mutual devotion that makes marriages happy, so what’s its point, except to keep a man faithful to his wife?
Cases of females behaving nobly:
http://julianodea.blogspot.com/2004/04/grace-darling-effect-some-years-ago-on.html
Thanks David – cool article!
@Suz
Youre trying to reach conclusions where there are none, its biology
Its pretty obvious what the problems are, when society tells us women love men, but their biology says otherwise
I also already explained love, & the rest of the emotions experienced in a relationship, are simply humanisations of biology, theyre simply definitions of behaviour, they have very little to do with the biology behind those actions
If you want to learn more about the socio-biology of womens behaviour, theres a thing called google …
Your scattershot approach to asking questions isnt conducive to holding a discussion, ask about specifics you dont understand & ill be happy to answer them
OK, I’m working on some questions now actually. And the first one is: presuming women aren’t capable of this narrow definition fo “love,” why does it matter, since women are capable of emotions that are far more valuable to a solid, permanent realtionship (The kind most men used to want, and many still do?)
@Suz
“and when my emotions overwhelm me, I can “turn them off,” set them aside, and become coldly rational”
I’d consider that quite a key male attribute FWIW. Part of what raises humans over shaved chimps, especially if it gets to the self-sacrifice to save others. While I do believe it is more common in males, I do think that women can do it too. It’s just that society demands it of men and trumpets any hint of it in a woman from the mountain top.
I don’t believe that society is earning the right to ask it of men, let alone demand it…which is where we get back to the RMS Titanic compared to the Concordia. Society changed the deal and the men worked it out first.
Using emotions, not being used by emotions that’s what make adults. Very unfashionable in these days where NOW is what matters and only now.
Just1X
FWIW (I haven’t read this thread fully), you have not earned the title ‘Bitch’ from me. I understand the difficulty to explain complex situations clearly while trying to keep some anonymity / privacy.
Thanks just1X. I have a few male attributes, which seems odd to me because I’m totally straight and very feminine. I’ve always identified better with men than with women. I’ve been saying for twenty years that I’m glad my only child is a boy – I wouldn’t know how to raise a girl…
“And the first one is: presuming women aren’t capable of this narrow definition fo “love,” why does it matte”
I was referring to the above in my reply …
“Its pretty obvious what the problems are, when society tells us women love men, but their biology says otherwise”
As to your
“since women are capable of emotions that are far more valuable to a solid, permanent realtionship (The kind most men used to want, and many still do?)”
Women arent, they have to be lead & broken into anything useful, ie womens natural toxicity & hatred for betas
This is mainly because, Women arent meant to be in long term relationships, theyre meant to be used for their gestation period & then discarded for a younger & more fertile woman
Harems are meant to allow the above as humanely as possible
Youre still approaching things from a monogamous, hypergamous viewpoint … men & women arent meant to be monogamous biologically
Trying to approach biology from a civilised conditioned point of view, never makes sense
Older women become more matriarchial as they age, after the age of 50+
This also why women become more dysfunctional & generally irrational in the west, theyre inability to be in a matriarchial group of women has severe deletrious effects for women in their old age
Interesting perspectives.
“Youre still approaching things from a monogamous, hypergamous viewpoint … men & women arent meant to be monogamous biologically”
I can see that as necessary when resources can become scarce suddenly. We must be able to adapt, and that’s what we evolved to do.
I’m reading Keys’ book now; can you give me more sources? So far, I’ve found mostly articles which address the CONFLICT between biology and the (ironically biological) need to conform to social norms. What I’m looking for is how we use logic and will to channel our biological needs in socially acceptable ways, without denying or completely compromising either. It’s how real people live day to day, but I’m having trouble finding scientists who are willing to honestly integrate the two. The sociologists are skeptical of the sociobiologists, and the sociobiologists still “have something to prove.” We have the ability to act in suppression of our biological needs and we do it all the time, often with bad results. Some of us, however, manage to do it to a degree that succeeds fairly well. More of us need to learn how. Who is writing about this “balance?”
Huh. You know, I’ve always believed that 50% of true love is choice. I guess that’s my bias.
Thanks for your response. It was helpful.
I just had to link this. I like John Shore because he’s good at calling out Christianity on its hypocrisy. He’s pretty liberal, and I don’t think he’s aware of the power feminism has in the church. If he ever turns his focus in that direction, he will be a force to be reckoned with. His take on Driscoll was funnier than I expected; sometimes he lets his inner 12-year-old run rampant:
http://johnshore.com/2012/01/26/mark-driscoll-conehead/
I read some more of John Shore’s site and I really don’t see him ever taking feminism to task. It’s full of articles apologizing to women for dopey men and our power hungry foolishness. Maybe you landed on differently themed articles than I?
No Marcus, you’re right. He’s too soft on women (which I find odd because his mother was a monster) but he has a keen sense of fairness and logic. If the light bulb ever clicks on for him, he has the potential to become truly amazing.
Regarding this character John Shore: These abhorrent letters from women who’ve had abortions and their sympathizers shows us the absolute phoniness that is rampant in feminized “Christianity.”
http://johnshore.com/2012/01/05/from-a-christian-woman-who-chose-abortion/
http://johnshore.com/2012/01/07/she-was-forgiven-even-before-she-had-an-abortion/
I hate to say it but I’ve come to the conclusion the vast majority of “traditional” churches of most denominations are run by money grubbing frauds – and the followers who for the most part are kidding themselves get the leaders they deserve. I don’t think you could put 12 Santorum voters, even if they were all men, on a jury, and have them convict a women of having an abortion and punish the woman with any length of prison. When push comes to shove, protecting “daddy’s little girl” trumps the supposed moral teachings of the group.
Some say women don’t love men, they love their social status. Well, men don’t love women, they love tits and ass. Without youth and beauty, he’d never fall in love with the woman in the first place (unless he’s a rare outlifer who likes ugly old women). Men’s love is not this unconditional noble thing you make it out to be. Imagine that – a beautiful soul would mean NOTHING to a man if the body it resides in is ugly.
Also, unconditional love is something everyone keeps talking about, but it’s not a good thing. Unconditional means you love that person even if they beat you, treat you like shit, let themselves go and become a completely different person. Who would be proud of that ability? What’s so amazing about continuing to love when your love is not justified by anything at all anymore?
Suz is pretty strong, in my opinion. People with emotional problems are hard to deal with. Especially hard when they used to be so bright and bubbly. It can hurt to a point where you wish you didn’t love them, because the pain is proportional to your love. Sadness alone is bad enough, but it gets worse if they become mean too, not like themselves at all. It has nothing to do with hypergamy, these feelings occur even if they are your friend or relative, or even female. Learning more about depression helps you understand though.
I’m sorry so many alpha thugs have had their turn with you dearie, because
“Imagine that – a beautiful soul would mean NOTHING to a man if the body it resides in is ugly.”
is hilariously wrong. You’ve really been hardened from the carousel haven’t you? All men who haven’t divorced his wife after 45. He continues to feel devotion to the conscious being, not her looks. With women, everything lives and dies with status, and resources. Men are commiting a common good by not tossing women out at 45 for a younger model, and guess why? Because he is devoted to her. In a way someone who writes:
“What’s so amazing about continuing to love when your love is not justified by anything at all anymore?”
would never be able to understand. I read this quote, and laughed considering the rest of your worthless garbage. Cognitive Dissonance, look it up.
The emotional garbage spewed by Emma the Emu is hilarious & typical …
Emma proves women dont have the ability to form a relationship with men, as theyre too busy forming emotional rhetoric about how THEY the woman feels about the man …
You can see this in Suz posts on her husband in this thread… she literally states her reason for blathering on about herself, as it would make him look weak …
Heres news for you ladies, empathy & emotions are CONTEXT & SOCIALLY based, without context or a social context, there is no empathy or emotions
Try feeling sad or empathic without a context or social context
Everytime you try & state an emotional or empathic pretext, youre proving my point …
A womans ability to bond is always socially contextual nothing more, if a male doesnt have enough alpha triggers, to create a social status, the woman cannot bond or fall in love with the man
Women biologically bond or fall in love with a mans social status nothing more, the relationship they form is in fact with the social persona of the man
It is this social persona, the enigmatic social entity which tempts the adultress, as she eyes a married man, or the man as he walks with hordes of women on his arm
Pre-selection is simply manipulating this biolgical need for social bad boys, socially contextual subversion is the domain of the woman, she simply doesnt have the biological capability to bond or love a mans attributes, only the social persona or social status those attributes go onto create
Haven’t had the carousel, sorry. You have a point there saying that men don’t dump their older wives much, while women are quicker to divorce. My point was that both female and male love starts with really shallow stuff. It can turn into something lasting later, but you can’t bypass the shallow stuff.
And what is your problem with my quote? Cool, would you love your spouse after they started punching you in the face every single day?
@Emma the Emu
Men dont punch women in the face, women, stab, shoot, kill, let men die in the workplace by the thousands every year
While women file false dv & rape by the thousands everyyear
Maybe you should quit continuing that trend by assuming all men abuse women
Your feminist garbage is sickening …
Actually, believe it or not, your responses make me very happy. Just like a man is disappointed when he learns he can’t get a woman to love him without alphaness, I was disappointed when I learned a man wouldn’t love me unless I was pretty. But knowing now that men, despite the initial shallowness, can love you even as you age and become less and less hot, makes me very happy. It means that lifelong love is possible after all. Still kinda sucks that I can’t be loved without initially having good looks, but whatever, it’s good enough.
Btw, what are a man’s “attributes”?
“Emma proves women dont have the ability to form a relationship with men, as theyre too busy forming emotional rhetoric about how THEY the woman feels about the man …”
Just because I posted an somewhat emotional comment, doesn’t mean I lack other feelings or a capacity to love. I just aknowledge the fact that men’s love starts with how a woman looks. Like you said, it’s biology.
“Men dont punch women in the face, women, stab, shoot, kill, let men die in the workplace by the thousands every year”
That wasn’t the point. My point was that unconditional love is a bad thing. Loving someone no matter what also means loving them even if they punch you in the face every day. Maybe it’s a stale point, but it’s sad to hear unconditional love being praised when it’s actually harmful.
“Maybe you should quit continuing that trend by assuming all men abuse women”
I didn’t say that. I never said all men abuse women, where did that come from? I didn’t even think it.
You missed your daily media brainwashing, love. Haven’t you watched Law and Order, or CSI whatever or any Hollywood movie lately? All criminals, rapists, dead beats and pedobears etc, are men, duh. Your feminist training is starting to wear thin. Back to the women’s and gender? studies with you.
I don’t watch TV anymore, but yes, I know about those things. I didn’t create them though and don’t agree with them, so no reason to be mean to me about it. Rmaxd said I was saying that “all men are abusers”, but I never said that.
I saw manwomanmyth’s video on people who gets killed the most in tv shows and movies. He said it was men. I think it’s kinda true. Men killed on tv are “they don’t really count” kills. If a woman gets killed, there is more often a reaction (either an outrage or the violence is sexualized and done for fun). But maybe I’m biased because I watch mostly horror movies.
Actually I said you assumed all men abuse women, as its a part of your feminist indoctrination
The truth is women WANT to be in abusive & violent relationships
Which is why feminists, are always spouting about abuse, they KNOW this is what turns women on
Instead of blaming the woman for being so sick & degenerate, they blame the man, when the woman chose the guy & refused to let go of the gina tingle machine, even after years of black eyes & being drop kicked down the stairs
Women WANT to give uncoditional love to abusive men, this is what women want
Women love getting drop kicked down a flight of stairs, this is how starved these women are of masculinity
Nothing gets a woman so hot & bothered then a good kick up the ass & a get a clue fourbyfour, after they piss off the wrong thug or badboy …
I meant to say
Which is why feminists, are always spouting about abuse, they KNOW this is what turns THEM the feminists on … doh …
“A womans ability to bond is always socially contextual nothing more, if a male doesnt have enough alpha triggers, to create a social status, the woman cannot bond or fall in love with the man.
Women biologically bond or fall in love with a mans social status nothing more, the relationship they form is in fact with the social persona of the man”
Rmaxd, you never did give me your sources for this. From your earlier comments, I get the impression you’re discounting the complexity of the brain chemistry cocktail which creates emotions, and you’re focusing on the Big Ones – dopamine and oxytocin. It’s more subtle than that, and you don’t seem to be accounting for the role of reason, external stimuli or conditioned response. “Falling in love” as you describe it, sounds suspiciously like fairy-tale infatuation, and yes women can absolutely transfer it from one man to another. And yes, alpha status is definitely what her brain responds to. Deep love is one of the things that prevents a woman from “trading up” when she meets a higher status man, one for whom she may feel a brief infatuation. Love is part of how she trains herself to suppress that infatuation. Women today won’t starve if they attempt to trade up, and they are trained from birth to believe they would succeed in trading up. (Look how disillusioned they are when they fail.) Many women choose stay with their dear betas whose alpha tendencies continue to diminish, when they don’t have to.
“Women arent meant to be in long term relationships, theyre meant to be used for their gestation period & then discarded for a younger & more fertile woman
Harems are meant to allow the above as humanely as possible”
I disagree with this, because women are designed to raise children, not just to give birth, and that takes years. If women were discarded after gestation, children would starve. Polygamy I get. It makes the most sense overall. Harems are not a humane way to discard women, primitive societies could’t afford to support “discarded” women. Harems are good environments in which to raise children, and not in isolation from their fathers. This requires a mutual (though not necessarily exclusive) commitment to a long term relationship. Women were designed to maintain intimate relationships with their children’s fathers for a solid 15 years. It seems to me that the polygamy model would indicate the opposite of what you’re saying about love. If a man is prone to develop a deep loving bond with one woman, he’d be disinclined to have a harem – it might be more work than it’s worth, especially if he can get extramarital sex without the burden of supporting yet another wife. On the other hand, for a woman to live amicably with (or at least tolerate) competing wives, she would be well served by a deep loving bond with her husband. If she’s not devoted to him, but devoted only to her own children, there would be little incentive for her to contribute more than minimally to the household. Can you imagine the toxicity in a house full of jealous discarded women who don’t love the one person who ties them together? Not a good way to raise productive offspring. How could she be attracted only to his status? The higher his status, the more (competing) wives he can afford. If women are only in it for the cold mechanics of reproduction, them men must be in it for the same thing.
Again, what are your scientific sources? So far you have only addressed the barest brain chemistry, and very little of what influences that chemistry. The only trigger you’ve mentioned is dominant male status, and that sure isn’t what triggers, or sustains, a woman’s love for her children (whether she gave birth to them or not.)
Suz I suggest you pose your questions, at Roissys Chateau, youll get a far more interesting response & far more wider range of replies
This blog is first & foremost a relationship blog, not a game blog, & im getting a bit tired of having to field & repeat the same game criticisms Ive heard hundreds of times
TFH & the other commentators do a great job, but the experts are at Roissys
Personally Im not enjoying the anti-game direction of dalrock atm, & having to field the same anti-game comments from ppl who havent got a clue about game in the other articles is bordering on the irrational
“Actually I said you assumed all men abuse women,..”
But I didn’t..
@rmaxd
The only thing that is irrational in the discussions on the topic of “game” is attributing things to it that cannot be proven beyond anecdote. AS for your other criticisms, it is completely valid to conflate “inner-game/relationship-game” with supplication and building a “better beta” to better serve the whims of women. It is valid because of the absolutely monster number of women who are simply salivating at the prospect of again, making men shoulder all the responsibility to “maintain” the relationship and his own personality exactly, how, she, wants.
Pingback: How feminist pastors like Kevin DeYoung and Mark Driscoll undermine marriage « Wintery Knight
If you aren’t a Christian and don’t know Jesus as your Lord and savior and believe that His word is what we should aspire to everyday then none of what Mark Driscoll says will make sense to you. He often speaks about the role of a wife as a helpmate and servant headship of the man and that men and women are fellow heirs to the throne. He says that men aren’t more important than women. He says that men have a greater responsibilty for the family and again, God says that in His word. These post are somewhat disheartening…like throwing pearls to dogs….
I find it strange to base such a critical post on an *assumption* that the woman in question was a career-oriented slut. I also find it very difficult to believe that men who can speak in such disrespectful terms of women with that much ease know what the love of Christ is to any significant degree. It’s interesting to note how Jesus encountered women who He actually *knew* (not just assumed) had engaged in sexual immorality, and yet no such invectives came out of His mouth.
“Don’t judge me”
@Dee & arid2385
Did you pause to think and pray about the post and read the comments? It may seem like a silly question, but I often wonder if Christian women expend any time in quiet contemplation before shaming men.
Aw, 7man, you’re raining on their little parade. Sad, sighing, platitude-laden condescension is what Churchian Ladies DO.
+1 to arid2385
Dalrock,
I won’t argue what you say about feminism, but to lay this all at their feet is wrong, and dangerous. The vast majority of the church has bought into the world’s lies about what marriage should and should not be. If a couple under 25 wants to marry virtually every Christian they know will warn them they are to young. If they are under 20 they will be assaulted, as will their parents for “allowing such a thing”.
We don’t value marraige as Hebrews commands us to. We value a good education, a good job, and a good house far more than we value a good and timely marriage. We think we can “have it all” by postponing marriage – and the results are the things you said so well. We think we can have God’s will on our timetable, and that never works.
Did these lies we have swallowed come from feminism? In large part they probably did – but we’ve accepted them so much it no longer matters. They are lies we have owned, and we now teach them as if they come from the Bible.
May God forgive us, and show us the truth!
[D: I think you are fundamentally right. Welcome to the blog.]
“We value a good education, a good job, and a good house far more than we value a good and timely marriage. We think we can “have it all” by postponing marriage – and the results are the things you said so well. We think we can have God’s will on our timetable, and that never works.”
Which sex is told “they can have it all.” Why is there disgust with young women marrying early (or courting) older men? Who is responsible for the acceptance of coeducation, for the fact that women are not held to moral standards in churches, but men can easily find themselves labeled as villains. It isn’t materialism. It’s feminism. It’s woman worship. Comte said the worship of woman should be institutionalized. We’ve almost gotten there. Anyone who doesn’t recognize feminism for what it is – the deadly irreconcilable enemy of Christian marriage and the family, does understand what’s at stake.
Worldliness and materialism haven’t changed. What has changed is society’s norms pertaining to women and relations with women. Why should anyone try to shift the blame away from demonic feminism with its love for abortion and promiscuity is beyond me.
Joe – If it’s all their fault, then we have no power to change it, do we? On the other hand, if we have made some mistakes, then we can do something to fix things.
I am a 35-year-old non-feminist virgin woman who would gladly drop my career to marry a good man and raise a family. But I have never been asked on a date. Ever. And the few times I’ve asked men out, I was turned down. You might acknowledge that women in my position do exist and give some advice accordingly.
@TamaraF
Welcome to the blog TamaraF.
I’m not sure exactly what your position is. It is true that the embrace of sluthood and the hookup culture, along with women abusing courtship and greatly extending the traditional age at which they look for husbands has all but eliminated the custom of dating. If Pastor Driscoll ever wants to help to bring the dating culture back, I could help point him in the right direction. However, it will result in unhappy sluts, which is something I strongly suspect he isn’t prepared to accept.
Are you saying that in the last 20 or so years you have received no interest from men who wanted to have a relationship with you, or are you being very specific and saying none of them wanted to take you on formal dates? If it is the former, this is extremely uncommon, but it being uncommon wouldn’t make it any better for the woman who experiences it.
Either way, I wish you the best. I did write a post just under a year ago titled Advice to a woman in her 30s looking to marry which you may find of interest.
TamaraF:
I feel very bad for you that you have never been asked out. I’ll tak everything you say at face value and presume it to be true.
It’s really extremely rare for a woman to be unable to generate any sexual or romantic interest whatsoever. You might consider a few things FWIW. Only you can really answer these questions. By positing these I don’t mean in any way to cast aspersions on you or women like you.
1. Is your appearance the best it can be?
2. Are you nice to people? Do you put out vibes of accessibility or inaccessibility?
3. How high are your standards? Are you realistic or unrealistic? The men you asked out and were turned down — how realistic were you in asking out those men?
4. What do you talk about when you are in public? Do you listen, or do you talk about your travel, your career, or other things you have done?
5. Do you go out and try to meet people, or do you hang back and let them come to you?
Advice:
1. Do all you can to improve your physical appearance. Keep your weight down, your hair long, and your makeup on.
2. Be NICE. Be accessible. If you see a guy you like, throw out clear and unmistakable indicators of interest if there’s something there. YOU will have to do it.
3. Take a chainsaw to your checklists for men. Pare it down to the dealbreakers. Everything else is negotiable.
4. Be feminine. A woman’s attractiveness is not derived from her career, her salary, her education, her achievements or her experiences. It is derived from her appearance and her feminine bearing and demeanor. In other words: Be pretty. Be nice.
5. You will need to go to some of the men, rather than letting them come to you.
Tamara, I sympathize – I really do. I have a couple of friends who are in the same boat. Based on my experience with them, deti’s advice rings true. I don’t know anything about you, so I can only speak to what I have observed with them.
A) They have not placed a priority on their appearance. They are both moderately overweight, and don’t put much work into their “look” as far as fashion goes. Six months of *hard* work at the gym and a few fashion/makeup consultations would do wonders for them.
B) The guys they are attracted to would never give them the time of day. One thought she had a shot with the local news anchor! A classic case of one’s reach exceeding their grasp. They both need to lower their expectations dramatically. Also, getting someone their own age is right out at this point. At 35, you need to be looking at guys who are 45-50.
Have you given online dating a try? A serious try? Even with the abundance of online dating ads on TV, I find that many women are still loathe to give it a real shot. They go in half-heartedly, and give up within a month. I met my wife via eHarmony, but I was on there for *two years* before getting matched with my wife. Persistence is the key.
Good luck.
If a couple under 25 wants to marry virtually every Christian they know will warn them they are to young. If they are under 20 they will be assaulted, as will their parents for “allowing such a thing”.
Yea, I’ve been saying for years: “You can’t simultaneously tell kids, don’t have sex till you get married — and don’t get married til you’re 30!”
Or as Robert Stacy McCain so eloquently put it: “They’re not going to wait til they are old and ugly to have sex”.
To Joe Sheehy: ” Why is there disgust with young women marrying early (or courting) older men”
I would gather some of it comes from younger men who are at the peak of their sex drive. When they don’t have wives, their options are to be sexually frustrated or have illicit sex. What is more ideal, I think, is to enable young men to reach functional adulthood at the same time they reach biological adulthood so that marriage is attainable.
TamaraF: As a male that has sought a good relationship, I can definitely say you have some good advice from both deti and rico. But I can relate some of my own experiences of meeting women. Depending on the person, physical attractiveness in and of itself is a varying factor.
It’s not that physical appearance is the factor, it’s how well you take care of yourself. As was alluded to, reasonably decent dress and proper use of makeup/perfume can make a difference. Nothing more offensive to me than to see a woman who’s done up like a tart, for instance.
Then, there are so many women I’ve met that are so prideful and have no sense of their proper place in this world. They think the world revolves around them, they aren’t flawed, and consequently they don’t need to be gracious with others (in other words, cut down the 20 million requirements for a mate, and realize your s**t stinks just like the rest of ours). This is part of raising them, but also the messages in the society as well as in the church. While I would prefer a Christian women, I’m not seeing that they are any different or better than others. They get this “I’m a daughter of the King” stuff drummed into them, along with a huge case of pride and arrogance. Then there’s the blogger I encountered another time that was whining about how she couldn’t get a man, and didn’t know why the men weren’t lining up. The answer was easily revealed in reading her other blog posts. The anger, bitterness and bile of this woman when it came to the men of her past was legendary, the other women (manginas) on the blog would support her at every point, and she refused to listen when she was told what she is. As many in the manosphere would say, these women deserve to be spinsters. Be very willing to put the mirror on yourself, see your flaws, and correct them.
Then be accessible. Think about and learn when you are putting out an unapproachable vibe. Be open and interested, if you are interested in a man. Personally, if I get more “f**k off” than “come talk to me” when I look at you, I’m not going to even bother to say hi to you. That’s the way most all men will be, if you look like you want to be alone, you will be honored in it. To that end, another example is a woman I talked with. Very moral upright woman who found it hard to get men’s interest. I suggested to her much like above. Be approachable, open, and interested. Can the religious pretensions (“God’s going to send a perfect man my way and when the Lord’s ready he’s going to approach me”), as well as your own prejudices in what “the one” is going to look like and just be open to whatever comes.
@Rincon
“I would gather some of it comes from younger men who are at the peak of their sex drive. When they don’t have wives, their options are to be sexually frustrated or have illicit sex. What is more ideal, I think, is to enable young men to reach functional adulthood at the same time they reach biological adulthood so that marriage is attainable.”
With all due respect, what young men think of things is not taken into consideration when social attitudes are formed. A girl’s brothers might not like her going with an older man, that’s not going to dissuade her. What will dissuade her is virtually unanimous chorus of disapproval, instigated mainly by women, especially jealous women, and abetted by the clergy.
While I agree with you it’s bad for men to have such difficulty establishing themselves, that’s part of the current system, and it’s always been true historically that some men in their thirties have married women in their teens. While male sexual sin is very bad, marriage as an institution is not threatened by it the way that female unchastity threatens marriage.
One of the few advantages of the breakdown assortative mating is that men who see women rejecting them when they’re young are saved from making a bad match. It’s to the advantage of younger men to have older men court women the same age as themselves. It’s going to happen anyway, better to happen licitly than illicitly. And it gives the younger man the same option, when he gets older.
@marriagebedcom
You have responded to the siren song of balance, fair, reasonable, or scripturally, the toothpick vs log and all that regarding the issue at hand. The observations are as dalrock says, pretty much correct factually, however functionally they are useless for anything except saying them in mixed company so everyone feels good.
It reminds me of the old Roger Ramjet cartoon where the mayor says (about some recent visits from aliens) “This flying saucer situation is abominable, someone ought to do something about it”, to which one of the towns folks answers, “lets pass a law against it”
Men have been copping to our proclivities (and how!) in church for decades. The very foundation of the church is to be corrective to men and encouraging to women….no deviations. So telling us that we are also flawed and can only fix ourselves and so forth is noble, and useless. Intelligent folks of both genders need to realize that there is a statistical distribution of the problems, and we have been spending 90% of our time and effort on 10%of the problem.
Time to reverse that
TamaraF:
Roosh had a good post up today. Paraphrasing, he said if a woman wants to land a man, she needs to do two things:
1. Spend most of your effort and time on your physical appearance; and
2. Lower your standards.
1. Because men are visual and physical appearance is 90% (at least) of what attracts men initially; and
2. Because too many women are wildly unrealistic about what they can get long term. This is because most women can get an alpha for a night or three of sex. But these women will never — NEVER — get an alpha for marriage or even an LTR. NEVER. As in not ever, As in IMPOSSIBLE.
I cannot stress this enough. Women who think they get alphas for sex are deluding themselves and borderline insane if they believe these alpha douchebag men will marry them. NOT. GOING. TO. HAPPEN.
These men will NEVER wife them up. NEVER.
http://www.rooshv.com/the-secret-to-landing-a-man
Looking at the advice regarding how a woman should attract a mate, I guess the Bible is wrong: “Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of braiding the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.” 1 Peter 3:3-4
“Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that fears the LORD, she shall be praised.” Proverbs 31:30
In quoting the Bible, I find this verse has some support with me:
“A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed.”
– Deuteronomy 22:13-21
It’s reasonable to assume that if there’s a chance of getting an incurable disease from a slut who poses as your wife … and may pass on a condition to your children that you may have to explain to them about, such extreme measures can be arguably understood and maybe even accepted. You know, the “quality of life” argument.
After all, should a child that is born without sin … have to suffer the failings of the compromised immune system of one of the parents that slept around previously but enters into the compact of holy matrimony knowing that previous fornication renders them blaspheming against God in the sacred ceremony of marriage?
Rincon:
I suspect those verses talk about how a woman should not relate to God. She should not think her physical appearance renders her more or less pleasing to God, because it does not matter to Him.
Also, there’s a difference between wanting to look good for a husband, and deriving your intrinsic value from your physical appearance. The former is virtuous. The latter is vanity.
My short time in the Manosphere has made me think that that not following the instruction in Proverbs to marry a woman with brains and ( I’m also thinking that implies) spiritual depth, has led quite a few men into marrying silly girls who later frivously divorce them. And they seem to apply the experiences that they’ve had with these silly girls and make generalizations about all woman. I have seen this done before but usually by woman who marry Alpha guys, get hurt and say all men are jerks. I think Rincon was right on target . I think you should ask God to show you spiritually beauty and to be primarily attracted to that. And then I think the physical beauty will follow along, it often does. A lot of these plain jane’s are incredibly beautiful, and especially in circumstances that only their husbands get to see them in
^ There’s a quick line to go with what you’ve just typed:
“What care I how good she be … if she be not good to me?”
Sheera – Brilliant, thank you. We generally get what we deserve, and when we are attracted to shallow, we get problems. No single quality, or short list of qualities, makes a man a good husband or a woman a good wife. If there is no substance, no depth, no one will be happy in the long run.
The wise man or woman only makes this mistake once. The foolish man or woman does it over and over, and blames not their choices, but the gender as a whole. The fine woman I married had very little in common with the woman I almost married a few years earlier – and that was by design.
And to P Ray, I will counter with another quick line:
“Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.”
I hear many of you saying that Driscoll shouldn’t tell boys to man-up and get married, but you take his words out of context. True, celibacy is more blessed than marriage, but it must be real celibacy. That means not only no fornication, but no porn or masturbation, either. If you’re content with living celibately, more power to you, but if you’re sitting in front of the computer watching porn, get out there and find a real woman.
Porn is a poison that destroys everything it touches. It gives boys a false impression about what sex really is, and it convinces girls they have to compete with something that isn’t even real. After all, porn is a fantasy- it is always scripted, rarely realistic, and often the physical attributes of the actors are edited or artificially enhanced. Animation and text aren’t even limited by what is feasible or possible for live actors to do.
I think they use animation where live actors might be illegal.
myth buster – “…if you’re sitting in front of the computer watching porn, get out there and find a real woman.”
Looks like you’ll need to bust your own myths. You make it sound like (visual) porn is something that only men and boy’s use and abuse. But those who are trying to get a handle on who are the ones using porn, they find that fully one-quarter to one-third of all (visual) porn viewers are women and girls. Seems like porn use is really taking off with younger women and girls (http://www.salon.com/2012/02/03/porn_is_coming_for_your_daughter/singleton/).
And, lets not forget that you attempt to shame men and boys (exclusively) as those who masturbate. Do you somehow imagine that all those women buying vibrators are really using them to massage their necks? Oh, wait. I you were dumb enough to believe that only men and boys view porn and masturbate, well then, you are also likely dumb enough to believe that those dildos are neck massagers.
And, I suppose it would be pointless to even try to get you to acknowledge that romance novels (aka chick porn) aren’t creating unrealistic expectations of men amongst the millions of women and girls who read them. I understand that many married women even like to read them (and watch romantic comedy chick flicks). I’d bet that there is a strong correlation between the use of such “chick porn” and the rate of women feeling dissatisfied in their marriages or in the men who might be potential husbands.
But, it seems that like so many other stooges, you still want to try to heap all the shame and blame on men and boys. Typical!
The big difference between men’s failings and women’s is that women’s are more easily hidden. Sometimes, they are hidden in plain sight. How many women read romance novels without getting moist?
Pingback: Nice Evangelical Men Need to Man Up (For Real) | Christian Men's Defense Network
Pingback: Texas U.S. Senate candidate is proud to have been raised by one of Stanton’s heroes! | Dalrock
Another pastor blaming men for everything wrong. Just like mine. So what the fuck else is new?
Pingback: The Ape And Princess Wedding | Western Woes
Pingback: Beauty taming the savage beast. | Dalrock
Driscoll knows which side his bread is buttered on….keep that collection plate filled….sadly with this, you can’t even take him seriously on anything now.
So glad I never married…never had a “game” and was never a hit with the ladies. In college as well……I was so very hurt for a long time…..and as I crested into my thirties every guy I knew was this:
“My wife filed for divorce, the courts took everything, and now I am back home living with my mom and dad”……………..funny thing is these men still managed to date, and get dates, sex, a girlfriend……so I assumed that most women (not all) from that point on were stupid.
Into my mid-forties now………
I have an okay job that I enjoy. I like my church, I’m thin. I like the fact that I still have a full head of hair 😉 and by my own work; my own saving…….I just closed on a really decent house where I want to live. I vacation on my own terms. I have long-term health care in place for when I do get frail.
Sure, the pangs of feeling “inferior” of not having a wife and kids hurts….but now it no longer cripples me (and I was never ‘good’ enough according to all the woman I asked out, approached, or took a liking to……..but abusive guy with three kids w/ different women was????)
Driscoll can say what he wants, or think what he wants….he will have to answer someday to Christ, and because he was in such a position, he will be held to a higher standard.
As for women? If I ever do marry, I’ll know her by her fruit of the spirit, and her actions. Not her words, not what she “thinks” (cough…FEELS-like-at-that-moment). I’ll know….and besides I don’t need a wife or children to have an eternity with my Savior.
Pingback: So You Got You A Christian Woman
In reading this I fear I am glad my husband and I gave up on the church before adulthood, because I worry the teachings would have been an obstacle to overcome for our souls.
We’ve been together 18 years. We are equal partners in our lives; I am not a subordinate help-mate. We own a business together 50/50-just the two of us as partners. We used his exceptional technical skill, tools, and industry contacts, along with my corporate development & management expertise, and my annual bonus for start-up capital. We’re in our 7th year and hired our 5th employee this summer. We made a new record revenue last month.
Someone mentioned to me once early in our marriage when my husband was making rapid increases in salary in the jo he had then how hopeful she was that I could quit my job soon so I could be a housewife. That definitely was not to be…
A few years later we relocated the family to a much better place for us-better schools, more family close by-because I was recruited for a much higher paying job, We had decided together as a family it was best for all, and went for it.
I mentioned my friend’s earlier hope for me to get to be a housewife to my husband after we’d been in the new city about a year. My husband laughed and told me that was silly.
He didn’t want a housewife, he said. He wanted to be married to someone who was smart, had drive and ambition, and could take care of herself. He wanted a partner, a friend, a soul mate, not a needy dependent whose life goal was to be ‘A wife,’ He tells me it’s clear I choose to be his wife because I love him and I want to be with him, not because I need him. He strives to be the man I want; the strong, secure, honest, loyal, faithful, caring man that I am completely in love with. And for us, that’s what a happy marriage is all about.
I mean you no disrespect with my comment. I only hope the best for all others here on Earth. If your more traditional marriages bring you both joy that is wonderful! I hope you can accept that our less-traditional marriage brings us much joy and is just as positive for the world.
Best regards to you all.
If you’re happy, what else is there?
Now all you have to look forward to is getting old and sick and dying.
“And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.”
(Luk 12:19-21)
The subtext to the comment by Happily Married is, surely: ‘Look (and despair) at how rich and successful we are, and please fail to notice that although I claim to be equally responsible for the success of my husband’s business all I actually contribute are corporate development skills and management expertise, which are respectively fancy words for “networking i.e. socialising on phone or in person” and “pushing the employees around”‘. No wonder Mr and Mrs HM needed to move close to family, for someone has to provide care for the children, given that Mrs HM and her husband seem to see that as beneath either of them. One wonders why Mr HM ever married at all, as he claims to have wished to marry a woman who did not seek to be ‘a wife’ but sought someone who was ‘smart, driven, ambitious’ – hardly the job-description for prospective wife. We do not hear whether he has outsourced his sexual needs but given his desire for ‘a partner, a friend, a soul-mate’ my gaydar is somewhat pinging.
HM abandoned Church before adulthood so what could it be that has brought her to an avowedly Christian blog, to explain to us all, how mistaken is Dalrock. Perhaps we will learn more from the avowed Anti-Male Feminist Gold Digger, Happily Married.
I saw that too Opus.
Pingback: 4 in 10 Americans believe marriage is obsolete.
Pingback: Feminism and the Progressive Principle: Christian edition | Sunshine Mary
Pingback: Why Christian Men Choose Not to Get Laid Before Marriage | The Reinvention of Man
orrrr someone could be unmarried at 40 because they have not found anyone to marry. or maybe they were never meant to marry. like…oh I don’t know…Jesus or Paul. You going to tell a nun or a monk that’s 40 or over they should hurry up and get married? huh??
it does NOT mean they have been fornicating. I’m pushing 30, never married, still a virgin. Waiting for God’s time and plan and not some preacher telling me I should hurry up and get married.
And Mark Driscoll is NOT a feminist, he is a flaming sexist.
Pingback: What is wrong with Christianity? • Remy Sheppard
Pingback: Xenophon’s “The Economist” Holds Valuable Lessons On A Woman’s Education
About time men got some blame for something, women have carried the burden of blame for just about everything, from world wars to men’s uncontrollable sexual urges, since the dawn of time! Anyway, there is way too much emphasis on marriage in the church – not everyone will marry and nor should they be made to marry. We are complete in Christ, we don’t need to marry a man or a woman to be made complete. One can concentrate far better on serving God as a single than they can having to look after a spouse and children. It’s probably why the Apostle Paul was so effective in preaching the true Gospel of grace.
About time men got some blame for something
Where have you been? Saudi Arabia? Men have been getting the blame for everything for decades now.
women have carried the burden of blame for just about everything, from world wars to men’s uncontrollable sexual urges, since the dawn of time!
Women have been blamed as have men, but do you have any evidence to show that women have carried the burden of blame for anything ever?
Fighting for the Faith did a review of a Driscoll sermon from 2006. The difference between his theology then and now is startling.
http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2015/07/driscolls-direct-revelation-throws-mh-elders-under-the-bus.html
@JDG Have you travelled much? Have you ever heard of honour killings? It is a practice that is still prevalent throughout the Middle East and parts of Asia – This is where a woman is raped by a man, sometimes several men, and then she is the one blamed for it and is killed (usually by her father or a brother) for dis-honouring her family.
Another ritual, although officially outlawed, that is still commonly practiced is called Sati – this is where the widow of a man that has recently died is blamed for the death of her husband and is publicly burned alive on her husband’s funeral pyre. There is also another practice known as bride burning, which occurs when a young woman is murdered by her husband or his family for her family’s refusal to pay additional dowry.
Closer to home in the West, women are frequently blamed for being raped because judges, and most often the media, have decided that they were complicit in their own rape, due to the provocative clothes they wore or because they had consumed alcohol at the time. How many male college students and sports stars have you seen escape punishment for their crime of rape purely because the woman in question is found to be at fault in some way?
Evidence enough? If not, I have plenty more, all too much to write on here though – it would take tomes. Check out the United Nations human rights abuses against women statistics sometime.
Pingback: Le mariage a besoin des hommes, et non l’inverse. – Les trois étendards.