The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
–G. K. Chesterton
Nearly all Traditional Conservatives are deeply invested in the narrative of men as uncivilized and immoral brutes who need to be tamed by morally superior women. We see this with Glenn Stanton’s delight in the movie As Good As It Gets, and his assertion to parents that their daughters will naturally grow up to be good so long as society doesn’t trip them up. We also see this in Pastor Driscoll’s famous line:
Men are like trucks: they drive straighter with a weighted load.
This narrative is in fact part of the rationale for women’s sacred path to marriage. Once the woman has had sex with a suitable variety of men, the man she hands the man up card to has the duty to marry her not only as a reward to her for having done the work of having sex with many men, but as a duty to himself to submit to her moral superiority so she can make him a better man.
Traditional Conservatives are making two key mistakes to come to this frame of mind. The first is a misunderstanding of why men in a culture which supports traditional marriage behave so differently than men in a culture which discourages it. Civilization was built by men, specifically by beta men who were motivated by the possibility of having and leading a family. Men are willing to work harder and make sacrifices when they either have a family or perceive the possibility of having one. Trad Cons have misunderstood this effect, and instead misattributed productive and civilized behavior among men to an effect of women being present.
The second mistake is Trad Cons having forgotten what they were conserving in the first place. As I’ve mentioned before, Trad Cons act much like a drift sock; they aren’t anchored to a fixed position so they simply act as a drag against whatever the current direction of change is.
If Trad Cons were anchored to a fixed position it would be the Bible. The Old Testament is filled with cautionary stories about men who let their wives lead them instead of the other way around, and the New Testament is also clear on this issue. Outside of the Bible, folk tales and Shakespeare teach the opposite of the modern Trad Con narrative, with tales of husbands taming their shrewish wives. However the Bible should either way be the primary anchor when conserving western thought on this issue, and this should be the case whether one is Christian or simply conserving the Judeo-Christian tradition.
But most Trad Con Christians aren’t anchored in the Bible. In fact, the Bible is an obstacle they need to overcome on a regular basis. Fortunately for them they have become quite good at this. Consider Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He explains the problem of pornography in marriage in his article The Seduction of Pornography and the Integrity of Christian Marriage, Part 2 (H/T Kaehu, and don’t miss Ballista74’s excellent post).
According to Dr. Mohler, the problem with pornography in Christian marriage is that it threatens the natural order of things by weakening the wife’s control over her husband (emphasis mine):
The emotional aspect of sex cannot be divorced from the physical dimension of the sex act. Though men are often tempted to forget this, women possess more and less gentle means of making that need clear.
Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed.
He explains that God wants wives to withhold sex in order to control their husbands, and in this way the wife can lead and purify her husband. While a husband’s desire for sex with his wife is physical and therefore shameful, she purifies the act of sex by ensuring that it is more abstract and emotional. He makes this argument by citing from 1 Corinthians 7, which states that neither spouse is to deny sex to the other because it creates temptation for sexual sin (like pornography). He reads this through the lens of Ephesians 5 which states that the husband is to lead his wife and to wash her with the water of the Word, and she is to submit to him. Where Scripture says “up”, Dr. Mohler explains that it secretly means “down”.
While Paul states in 1 Corinthians 7 that unmarried men are focused on pleasing the Lord and married men tend to fall into the trap of focusing on things of the world (pleasing their wives), Dr. Mohler knows that the opposite is true:
I am confident that God’s glory is seen in the fact that a married man, faithful to his wife, who loves her genuinely, will wake up in the morning driven by ambition and passion in order to make his wife proud, confident, and assured in her devotion to her husband.
Dr. Mohler explains that this occurs through the moral wisdom of a woman’s tingle:
Put most bluntly, I believe that God means for a man to be civilized, directed, and stimulated toward marital faithfulness by the fact that his wife will freely give herself to him sexually only when he presents himself as worthy of her attention and desire.
This he explains is the fundamental problem with pornography; it weakens the power the wife holds over her husband in the form of withheld sex, interfering with her ability to civilize him. He illustrates this by offering a contrast. First he describes a married man:
The first picture is of a man who has set himself toward a commitment to sexual purity, and is living in sexual integrity with his wife. In order to fulfill his wife’s rightful expectations and to maximize their mutual pleasure in the marriage bed, he is careful to live, to talk, to lead, and to love in such a way that his wife finds her fulfillment in giving herself to him in love.
He contrasts this to the untamed brutes men will naturally become if not lead by a wife:
This man need not be concerned with his physical appearance, his personal hygiene, or his moral character in the eyes of a wife. Without this structure and accountability, he is free to take his sexual pleasure without regard for his unshaved face, his slothfulness, his halitosis, his body odor, and his physical appearance.
Civilization was built by men, specifically by beta men who were motivated by the possibility of having and leading a family.
Dalrock, are you of the opinion (or at least sympathetic to the idea) that all civilization (family, organized religion, culture, government, etc.) is in and of itself evil?
[D: Not at all.]
“Without this structure and accountability, he is free”
Wait, what?
“He is free.”
Oh.
The interesting thing about these posts is the focus on the husband’s obligations not to himself or to the marriage or their children, but to his wife specifically.
“Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed.”
Note the exhortation to the man to prove himself. There is no concomitant exhortation to the wife to prove herself worthy of his commitment and provisioning. Hence the manosphere’s consistent focus on telling men to withhold commitment and money until she shows she’s earned it.
“Since the male sex drive is largely directed towards genital pleasure, men often assume that women are just the same. While physical pleasure is certainly an essential part of the female experience of sex, it is not as focused on the solitary goal of genital fulfillment as is the case with many men.”
The implicit argument is that physical pleasure for its own sake is base and perverted, and therefore evil. But what of women’s misuses of sex: for attention, affirmation, validation, status, or power? Christian authors never mention women’s baser behaviors: the tendency toward malice, their occasional vicious cruelty, their ability to rip out a man’s heart with nary a second thought, their ability to act in ruthless self-interest with no regard for others, their ability to walk away from a decades-long relationship and never look back.
If Mr Mohler can first find suitable and pure women, fit for marriage to an upstanding man with potential, then he can begin to talk. If this man is indeed saying that majority of women today are ‘fit’ for marriage and only men are to blame for the current dilemma by blaming our uncouth behaviour and unshaven faces, I would really like to try what he is smoking.
I always laugh over the ‘men = bad, women = good’ philosophy that is banded around as if it were Gospel. There is but one easy to follow instruction for a woman if she wants to remain pure before marriage, and that is, ‘no sex before marriage’. For some reason these women seem unable to follow this one instruction. There are indeed women who do follow this strictly, I take my hat off to them as they are the exception, but the rest of womanhood seems intent to take full advantage of their sexual youth and then hand in the ‘man up and marry’ card as their sexual power starts to wane.
Mr Mohler needs to back up his assertion by showing us worthy and young women who want marriage to a decent man, who can provide for his family; and not the neighbourhood thug. Or is he really expecting men to man up and marry a woman in her thirties, who spent more time on her career and bad boys, who has no idea what it takes to be a wife and who still secretly pines away for the long, lost lover of her youth. I’m sorry, but that’s a recipe for disaster and more divorce.
Is he secretly working for a law firm by any chance?!
“Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed.”
Why is that so-called Christians are permitted to completely reverse the plain meaning of scripture? I would stand up and scream at that freak.
This unfortunate mindset comes from one George Gilder, who pioneered the male side of gender studies in the 1970s. To be certain, he is to be applauded to attending to men in an era when women were the sole concern of the larger society, but he fell into the trap of attending to the Alpha man’s response to the Sexual Revolution. As David Rockefeller’s adoptive son, he grew up in an Alpha milieu, so perhaps he can be forgiven. Yet he excoriated men for divorcing the wives of their youth and exchanging them for younger, more nubile replacements. GILDER CORRECTLY PREDICTED THAT THIS WOULD LEAD TO DISCONTENT AND DISENGAGEMENT ON THE PART OF THE “LEFT BEHIND” MEN. Give him that much. He saw the corrective of this to be shaming the Alphas into remaining with their aging wives.
What Gilder failed to explain, and it is the fatal flaw of all of his arguments, was why the younger females preferred becoming second wives to being the first wives of the repudiated men. Hypergamy was never named or even guessed at, and certainly not described in such crass and explicit ways as they are at the Chateau or the Spearhead. Women were assumed to desire monogamy and security. Remember, Gilder’s Naked Nomads came out in 1976, only shortly after Roe v. Wade opened the floodgates for the Sexual Revolution, and hypergamy had not yet emerged from its cage snarling and snapping. “Nice guys” could still get laid, and women were not yet encouraged to “hold out for a hero”.
UNFORTUNATELY, Gilder became something of a guru for the Right because of his books on entrepreneurship and his criticism of the Welfare State, and later because of his prediction of the impact oif the Internet on the western commercial milieu. I don’t know how his erroneous teachings on the functioning of the sexual marketplace got adopted so uncritically by Traditional Conservatives, but it did.
“Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed.”
So, essentially wives are God’s earthly proxy agents for men. Wives are the arbiters of the Lord’s pleasure – if a woman is pleased, proud, secure and all-ways satisfied with her husband to the point she ‘rewards’ her good and faithful servant with access to her vagina, then God too must be pleased. Ergo hypergamy IS God’s plan.
Just think of how thoroughly conditioned a society would need to be to have men in positions of religious authority advocate that the feminine imperative IS God’s imperative. Well done feminism! The circle is complete; fear of God is now conflated with the fear of woman’s approval. Feminine rejection IS God’s rejection. To defy the feminine imperative is to defy God, and it’s religious men who’ll advocate the most strongly for it.
Christians are pussywhipped before they ever see a pussy.
He is so wrong, and yet he comes very close to being so right:
“. . . he is careful to live, to talk, to lead, and to love in such a way that his wife finds her fulfillment in giving herself to him in love.”
When a man has taken The Red Pill, is he not then careful to lead his wife in such a way that her hypergamous instincts increase her sexual desire for him? Amidst all of Dr. Mohler’s wrongness, that one sentence captures an essential Red Pill truth. The average man errs on the side of too much Beta.By increasing his Alpha, he will begin “to live, to talk, to lead, and to love in such a way that his wife finds her fulfillment in giving herself to him in love.”
Trad Cons have misunderstood this effect, and instead misattributed productive and civilized behavior among men to an effect of women being present.
If they had inserted a feminine woman caring for their family, they may have had it right. This power of withholding sex is not a feminine power. It is a masculine one as it is overt in it’s nature. A woman’s power is in her ability to inspire her husband to want to do more, to become stronger and more dominant not only toward her but toward the whole family. She cannot do this by grabbing for power, which is exactly what withholding sex is. Rather she does this by letting go and embracing her femininity and submissive nature. This vulnerability can inspire men to do great things and it most definitely will inspire a highly protective nature in the men who love them.
Yesterday I was reading up on the legal history of adultery, and came across the phrase “alienation of affection”. I’d never heard of it before.
My money says he’s rationalizing his wife’s behavior.
“Trad Cons have misunderstood this effect, and instead misattributed productive and civilized behavior among men to an effect of women being present.”
George Gilder fell for that one. Thankfully he self-destructed and is not listened to anymore.
The humorist P.J. O’Rourke made the comment that without men civilization would last until the next oil change, and Camille Paglia, although a lesbian is not a man-hating one, wrote that without men women would still be living in grass huts.
“What Gilder failed to explain, and it is the fatal flaw of all of his arguments, was why the younger females preferred becoming second wives to being the first wives of the repudiated men.”
This is a good point. And how can women be the moral authority in a marriage when they are already breaking God’s law in destroying these marriages?
Wy what logic are their values more “righteous” than man’s?
Wy what logic are their values more “righteous” than man’s?
By the logic of the pedestal.
asinus:
Your riff on Gilder reminded me of another of his half truths. Gilder posited that when left to their own devices, men are prone to roam. They don’t set down roots, don’t get motivated, and don’t civilize themselves. Women are the great civilizers, the reason civilization was created.
According to Gilder’s construct, an individual man when left to himself would never accomplish anything or amount to anything. He only becomes useful when he allows the civilizing influence of a woman into his life. She gives him purpose, adds meaning to his life. She, and she alone, makes him fit for company with others. She is his muse, his reason for being. It is only a woman who can turn a man into a real human being.
And so the tradcons and religious cons adopted the ideology that a man by himself is somehow broken, incomplete, damaged. He cannot fulfill his destiny unless a woman accepts him.
As predicted the machine that grinds families to bits keeps swapping in larger motors.
I cannot fathom how debased Mohler must be to claim that a woman’s vagina-tingling is an indicator of her spouse’s godliness.
The interesting thing about these posts is the focus on the husband’s obligations not to himself or to the marriage or their children, but to his wife specifically.
Dead on. It’s not about pleasing God. It’s about pleasing the goddess.
And knocking being unshaven, smelling like a guy naturally smells? The guy is ashamed of his own testosterone.
Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed.
This is certainly disgusting. It is, however, a natural consequence of a traditionalist world view that encourages women not to have direct authority or power in society or in their own homes. Women are only people, after all, and have the same basic desires men do to assert themselves. With few tools at their disposal, and with outright discouragement from openly asserting themselves, it’s natural that traditionalist women will start using sex as a “cookie” to dispense or withhold from their husbands as a reward or a punishment, rather than an event to be enjoyed by both husband and wife.
@Rollo Tomassi
It really is profound the depth of the rot of feminism. Dr. Mohler leads the religious instruction for future Southern Baptist pastors. If you asked the average American Who is fighting feminism and progressivism in Christianity today?, they would answer the Southern Baptists and Focus On the Family. Dr. Mohler and Glenn Stanton are what the leadership of the rear guard looks like.
DH, ‘Lliberated women’ are just as likely to withhold sex as punishment for men not doing what they want. It was ‘liberated women’, after all, who brought the ‘rape in marriage’ argument that leads to women feeling entitled to punish their husbands with no sex.
A women who doesn’t love her husband will use whatever means at her disposal so that she can divorce him and claim cash and prizes. Liberating women further will do nothing to fix that.
@deti –
Like all half-truths, the idea of the incompleteness of the single man has a grain of truth. Male-female relationships are supposed to reveal a truth about God’s relationship to (directly) His people and (indirectly) to His creation that a man alone cannot reflect. HOWEVER, never is it suggested, either by Gilder or by his lesser acolytes, that the same is true of women. Single women tend to be lionized by the Church in a way that single men, unless they are under vows of celibacy, are not.
The whole Protestant Evangelical magisterium seems to be geared towards teaching young women to be “complete in themselves [with Jesus, I assume]” before attempting “a relationship”. I cannot imagine a more perfect prescription for frustration.
Men and women are supposed to be together, and in complementary distribution. Two men or two women, one biological and one aspirational, cannot complete the metaphorical requirements. Our ancestors understood that, and if it wrought pain on the outliers, it was just assumed that they would suck it up on behalf of the majority.
The last fifty years has seen the emergence of a massive culture-wide obsession with the well-being of the outliers to the detriment of the core.
“Men are like trucks: they drive straighter with a weighted load.”
I really see no reason why you’d want to see a man encumbered by a heavy spousal load to the point where he couldn’t maneuver. Even a married man should be more like a Ferrari 458, Lotus Elise or Ariel Atom in terms of ability to perform. Or if you want to go off-road for true adaptability, go with a Lancia Stratos or a Ford Escort RS 1700T.
DH, ‘Lliberated women’ are just as likely to withhold sex as punishment for men not doing what they want. It was ‘liberated women’, after all, who brought the ‘rape in marriage’ argument that leads to women feeling entitled to punish their husbands with no sex.
Holy cow, Feminist Hater. You think men should be legally permitted to force their wives to have sex against their will???? Why would you even want to do that????
Of course, married women should be able to say “no” to sex they don’t want. This is no greater than the privilege married men enjoy, by the way.
That has nothing to do with using sex as a reward-and-punishment tool.
@Dalrock
The pedant in me is compelled to point out that if you are paraphrasing Shakespeare, it is the savage breast, not beast.
In saying, “Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed.”, I believe that Dr. Mohler is right. Where I disagree with him is when and how frequently this happens. Provided that there is no divorce, it surely happens once, for all time when the couple marry. This is a decision to be made while the couple are dating, to take effect from the time of the marriage.
I know that there has been a furore about rape comments recently, on both sides of the Atlantic, which included comments by and about a British MP, George Galloway, One of those comments about Mr. Galloway was that “A man does not get a season ticket to have sex with a woman. Each time requires consent.” Outside marriage, that is fair enough, but in a marriage that is a non-starter. If a woman withholds sex from her husband, then that cannot be other than a fundamental breach of the covenant of marriage and should leave the wife open to a charge of abandonment, or in modern no-fault terms, irretrievable breakdown of marriage as evidenced by a refusal to participate in the fundamental action that defines a marriage.
In saying, “Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed.”, I believe that Dr. Mohler is right. Where I disagree with him is when and how frequently this happens.
But it’s clearly unbiblical and there’s no question that there are clear instructions in the Bible that he should know and defend. Instead, he turned it completely upside down. If you’re a “leader” and you draw authoriy from Scripture, then you should give sound advice.
Really, this is like saying the sun rises in the West and sets in the East. It’s that backward.
“Of course, married women should be able to say “no” to sex they don’t want. This is no greater than the privilege married men enjoy, by the way.”
Actually, a fair privilege a man should be afforded is the permission to not talk to his wife or be completely excused from his commitment if his wife won’t put out.
I know that there has been a furore about rape comments recently, on both sides of the Atlantic, which included comments by and about a British MP, George Galloway, One of those comments about Mr. Galloway was that “A man does not get a season ticket to have sex with a woman. Each time requires consent.” Outside marriage, that is fair enough, but in a marriage that is a non-starter. If a woman withholds sex from her husband, then that cannot be other than a fundamental breach of the covenant of marriage and should leave the wife open to a charge of abandonment, or in modern no-fault terms, irretrievable breakdown of marriage as evidenced by a refusal to participate in the fundamental action that defines a marriage.
But what are we talking about here? If you want to call refusal to have sex “abandonment” for purposes of divorce, fine. Of course, this will have to go both ways, and men who refuse sex to their wives will have to pay the same penalty.
But how exactly will you define this? Are you really proposing that if a woman is on her way out the door to go to work or is tending a hurt child, she has to drop what she is doing to have sex if her husband demands it? Forcing a woman to have sex whenever her husband wants in essence gives him total control over all her movements, unless you find a way to define some exceptions into your rule.
The other problem is that you are talking about two different things. A husband or wife facing a consequence (such as a charge of abandonment) for withholding sex is one thing. Permitting marital rape — i.e. forced sex against someone’s will — is another thing.
Actually, a fair privilege a man should be afforded is the permission to not talk to his wife or be completely excused from his commitment if his wife won’t put out.
Nice try. First of all, a man absolutely has a right not to talk to his wife, and vice versa. Ever heard of the silent treatment? Men do it all the time, as do women. And if a wife tackles her husband to try to force him to talk to her, she should be charged with a crime.
As for being excused from your commitment if your wife won’t put out, yeah, it’s called “no fault” divorce. You know, that thing you keep complaining about.
I do not believe that most women are financially motivated to divorce by “cash and prizes”. A married woman will have 100% of the marital assets and access to all of her husband’s income. If they divorce she will have at best half. His income would have to support two households instead of one. Where are the cash and prizes from divorce?
Starviolet, in most divorces, the most valuable asset are the children. You can gain hundreds of thousands in tax free income if you divorce a man of average income early enough with only just two children.
Come on, DH.
All men completely understand she’s exhausted, tired, sick, not in the mood on occasion. That’s not the issue.
We’re talking about women purposefully withholding and refusing sex for manipulation or deception or passive-aggression or punishment.
It’s about refusing sex for lack of attraction. (Sorry. The time to think about that was BEFORE the wedding.)
It’s about six month long headaches. It’s about being tired all the time, EVERY time.
It’s about her being a deadf**k, pointedly just lying there being a living, breathing blowup doll, pointedly not being into the sex.
It’s about her pointed disdain. “Oh, all right. Let’s get this over with.”
I don’t see a problem with making a man earn his way into your bed for first time sex. When you are married he has already earned it.
Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed.
Wasn’t this taken care of when she said “I do”?
@Dumb Harlot
As for being excused from your commitment if your wife won’t put out, yeah, it’s called “no fault” divorce. You know, that thing you keep complaining about.
“Excused” implies “not penalized”, i.e. not robbed of your property, income, and children. I know you’re going to quibble over the use of “your”, because you’re a disingenuous idiot, but I’m also sure that everyone else will see your cheap little word game for what it is.
@ Star:
“Where are the cash and prizes from divorce?”
She gets to divorce a man she no longer wants to be married to, but gets a continued income stream from him. She gets all the benefits (the money) and none of the burdens (living with him, having sex with him, tolerating him). She gets all the returns and none of the obligations.
Rock throwing peasant – unless the husband is hiding his money or refusing to share a bank account then his wife has access to ALL of it. Not just the child support payments which will be less than his actual income.
I really see no reason why you’d want to see a man encumbered by a heavy spousal load to the point where he couldn’t maneuver. Even a married man should be more like a Ferrari 458, Lotus Elise or Ariel Atom in terms of ability to perform. Or if you want to go off-road for true adaptability, go with a Lancia Stratos or a Ford Escort RS 1700T.
Or Ford SVT Raptor.
Deti,
Oh, I totally understand and AGREE wholeheartedly that withholding sex as a punishment, or acting as if you’re doing your spouse a huge favor by having sex is wrong. I definitely believe that both husbands and wives have a moral obligation to make their spouses feel sexuall desired and sexually satisfied.
If you look above, you will see I’m not the one who brought up marital rape in this thread. (See Feminist Hater at 9:16 a.m.).
unless the husband is hiding his money or refusing to share a bank account then his wife has access to ALL of it. Not just the child support payments which will be less than his actual income
Rarely has the female entitlement complex been laid so bare. Marriage == Woman has control over 100% of her husband’s money and property.
And people wonder why society is literally (TFR) dying.
And, starviolet, rest assured every family law attorney gets all the financial info set during the first meeting. After they pat your hand and tell you all will be okay, they ask for every asset you have so they know just how much they can get from the divorce. Then, they say, “Let’s settle custody first.” Why? Because people will piss away every dime fighting the pointless battle when joint custody is healthiest for families.
The divorce attornies have this practice down. They know who is the unmovable one and they rah-rah that person to spend every dime they can with promises that they can recoup it through child suport (which is never tracked once it is paid, so it can be used for anything).
Twenty,
And why exactly women are women supposed to be lining up to marry some dude who views the wife as little more than a highly paid whore who gets to share “his” property in exchange for putting out? Sounds like a greaaat deal. (And then you wonder why feminists fought their way into equal paying jobs.)
Deti- she does not get all of the money she gets some of it. She will be less well off financially than before the divorce. I wonder what kind of man is so burdensome to live with, have sex with and tolerate.
Rape is not the issue. Consistent refusal, without a good reason, is. And, no gender equality is not implicated here. Men have much higher sex drives than women. For an eqivalent action on a husband’s part to his wife’s denial of sex, try consistent refusal to provide any emotional support/tenderness or withdrawal of access to financial resources.
SV:
Get a clue. With a divorce she gets continued acces to his cash but gets rid of him. In marriage, they both have access to the money, yes, but he does have some say in how it is spent. If need be, he can get a separate bank and/or investment account. Sure, legally, she may be able to force access to it, but that is cumbersome. With a divorce, typically, the wife gets the house, everything in it, the kids, the car (or the better car) and money, free, clear and convenient, and no longer has to deal with the husband and his “demands” or “whining” for sex.
“Holy cow, Feminist Hater. You think men should be legally permitted to force their wives to have sex against their will???? Why would you even want to do that???? ”
It’s no greater privilege than women having the same. And you don’t need force. And certainly not your hysterical exclamation marks.
http://web.archive.org/web/20041205044536/www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/amneus-war
doomed harlot why don’t you just leave, back at oz conservative you kept babbling about weininger’s theory and kept contradicting yourself. and now keep coming up with such stupid arguments:
“Are you really proposing that if a woman is on her way out the door to go to work or is tending a hurt child, she has to drop what she is doing to have sex if her husband demands it? “
Starviolet is right. Logically, divorce is going to result in a reduced standard of living for both husband and wife.
Not only that but in a traditional marriage, the wife has sacrificed or scaled back on career in order to care for the children. This means she has little or no future earning capacity, especially compared to the man. She is left to try to develop that future earning capacity while several steps behind the curve, or hope some other dude adopts her.
Oh, and not to mention the nightmare of trying to collect from some intransigent guy. I’ve seen cases where the woman absolutely cannot depend on that monthly check and has to drag the guy into court constantly to try to collect. Or in my in-laws’ case, my father-in-law simply stopped working. So relying on divorce to collect cash-and-prizes isn’t exactly a genius plan.
Rock throwing peasant – unless the husband is hiding his money or refusing to share a bank account then his wife has access to ALL of it. Not just the child support payments which will be less than his actual income.
You’re missing the big picture. First, divorce is not a rational move. It’s emotional, just like getting married. So, rational thinking discussing divorce is like using a screwdriver to push a nail it, because when you’re in divorce proceedings, it’s nothing but emotion.
Next, she can get thousands in tax free income. Consider that income as if it was “taxed” and her income went from making $50,000 a year to approx $80,000 a year (again, if is was taxed income and she is bringing in an extra net $20K a year). The husband goes from making $50,000 a year to $25,000 a year and he has to pay taxes on that income he forks over.
Look, let’s be blunt. If there was not a lot of money to be made, there would be less divorce. Divorce attorneys would push for quick settlements, splitting all 50/50, because they couldn’t get money from the family. They don’t look for quick, painless settlements because the system is geared to hammer one and reward the other.
the problems with marriage in western society go back a century.
http://mypostingcareer.com/forums/topic/5910-not-sure-if-rape-also-not-sure-if-wife-will-love-me/page__st__20#entry108843
and while we are on weininger, he wrote well of the phenomenon of ‘beauty taming the beast’, wagner’s parsifal etc.
http://kaganof.com/kagablog/2010/08/08/otto-weininger-on-what-love-is/
I really don’t know why people feed that troll.
If a wife’s submission is something to be granted just when she feels like it, or when a man has earned it by demonstrating his submission to her demands, it is not submission at all, but dominance.
But an even more important point is that the commandment to the man to love his wife and to the woman to obey her husband is not primarily a duty to each other – these are duties to God. The wife is not the judge of her husband’s love – God is. And her duty to God to obey her husband exists whether or not he fulfills his duty. Likewise, the husband’s duty to love his wife exists whether or not she fulfills her duty. Neither spouse is entitled to the position of judge, for that is God’s alone.
And this is the deepest flaw of Mohler’s perspective, encapsulated in this sentence:
“Therefore, when I say that a husband must regularly “earn” privileged access to the marital bed, I mean that a husband owes his wife the confidence, affection, and emotional support that would lead her to freely give herself to her husband in the act of sex.”
The first clause is true – the husband does owe his wife the confidence, affection and emotional support. The second clause is false – the wife’s freely giving herself to her husband is not contingent on her husband’s behavior, but only on her own.
By encouraging women to be the arbiters of sex by placing them in judgement of their husbands and making their own duties contingent upon that judgement, Christian leaders are encouraging women to usurp God’s role: “and you will be like God, knowing good and evil”. This of course is a manifestation of the original sin.
Shocking, isn’t it, DH, that men actually expect that marriage will come with benefits for them, as well as for their wives. No scare quotes, pre marriage, it is HIS money. She wants access to it. To support herself and the kids she wants to have. And she wants emotional intimacy and tenderness. In return, he wants regular sex and access to her childbearing capabilities. That’s what marriage is, or should be, all about. It’s a contract. A deal. It is NOT scandalous that men should actually want something out of the deal, in return for what they put into it. Nor that one of, if not the main, thing that they want is to satisfy their relentless sex drive.
Which is not an uncommon thing in history. While not wholly written in Scripture, there’s an almost age-old interpretation of the Old Testament Law aimed squarely at women (no it’s not hateful patriarchism, I find usually in old laws or commentaries that things aren’t addressed when they aren’t a concern – men don’t willfully withhold sex without just cause) where continued refusal of “the marital duty” over a protracted period without just cause (6 months or a year, can’t remember which right now) constituted a breach of the marriage covenant akin to adultery (but not as serious). There were warnings and such throughout this period, but if the whole period elapsed, the woman was to be sent on her way with nothing but the clothes on her back and her possessions she brought from before the marriage, along with very public notice of who she was and what she did so all the other potential suitors would know what she had done.
It’s a testament to the success of the feminists’ attack on the sanctity of marriage that sexual provision within marriage has gotten to be treated so flippantly compared to before.
He [Dr. Mohler] explains that God wants wives to withhold sex in order to control their husbands, and in this way the wife can lead and purify her husband.
I want to cry wolf.
I am confident that God’s glory is seen in the fact that a married man, faithful to his wife, who loves her genuinely, will wake up in the morning driven by ambition and passion in order to make his wife proud, confident, and assured in her devotion to her husband.
Honestly i would rather for God to be please with me then my wife. God can send me to hell forever. A woman can only make my life hell as long as I’m on earth. I’ll choose pleasing God any day.
My conclusion is that Dr. Mohler is “double minded.”
Rollo,
“So, essentially wives are God’s earthly proxy agents for men. Wives are the arbiters of the Lord’s pleasure – if a woman is pleased, proud, secure and all-ways satisfied with her husband to the point she ‘rewards’ her good and faithful servant with access to her vagina, then God too must be pleased. Ergo hypergamy IS God’s plan.”
It was when the alpha females were on the monogamy team. They were just as much in charge of the moral sphere then as they are now, and it had nothing to do with feminism. Feminism has become a force driving alpha females to the wrong team, but they were always “empowered”. Mohler was raised in an environment in which the alpha females were entirely onside. He’s oblivious to a world in which they’ve switched teams.
“Just think of how thoroughly conditioned a society would need to be to have men in positions of religious authority advocate that the feminine imperative IS God’s imperative. Well done feminism!”
Heh- it wasn’t feminism that did that, although earlier generations were more careful to unite the alpha female imperative with the beta male one in imagining God, with leadership opportunities for men to include the alpha males (i.e. headship). Behind the scenes, the alpha females, if not always calling the tune, definitely made their influence felt.
“The circle is complete; fear of God is now conflated with the fear of woman’s approval. Feminine rejection IS God’s rejection. To defy the feminine imperative is to defy God, and it’s religious men who’ll advocate the most strongly for it.”
There won’t be any religious men if the alpha females stay on the wrong team, but that is unlikely to happen. My guess is that their mess of pottage is already tasting sour.
@Doomed Harlot:
“Holy cow, Feminist Hater. You think men should be legally permitted to force their wives to have sex against their will???? Why would you even want to do that????
Of course, married women should be able to say “no” to sex they don’t want. This is no greater than the privilege married men enjoy, by the way.
That has nothing to do with using sex as a reward-and-punishment tool.
”
I would be fine with married women being able to say no to sex….but only if men can also neglect to fulfill their part of the marriage contract. Meaning men can pickup their bat and ball (and all of it, not leaving some behind for the wife) and leave to go get sex from some other woman.
Bottom line, men marry for sex, women marry for security.. Women get their contract filled forcefully by the State. Men are beholden to the desire of the woman to get what they married for.
Women tore up their part of the contract with the rise of feminism. So perhaps it is time that men are able to walk away without consequences and tear up their portion of the contract as well.
Another testament to the success of the feminist’s attack on the sanctity of marriage. The average business contract is both entered into and enforced in a much more serious manner than the average marriage covenant.
@RTP
The point that I did not make very well is that the time to decide whether she wants to have sex with a man is before the marriage, not afterwards. Earning the right to share the marital bed is a once for all action, and that right has been earned when the marriage takes place. The actual putting of that decision into practice comes later, after the marriage. It is not a reward that the husband has to earn again every time sex comes up for discussion, like wages from a job.
Unless the couple have separated, for example while dealing with the emotional fall out of some major problem like adultery or drug taking, and are actively trying to resolve their differences, then I see refusal as abandonment. However, I should have expected ar10308’s comment. I would (and did) make a distinction between cannot and will not. For example, my wife had surgery for a ruptured ectopic pregnancy and had a wound from the operation that ran way down from almost her navel. We went without sex for about six weeks to two months, because my wife was not able to have sex. I love this woman and I had made a journey of around 75 miles from where I was working away at the time because the medic had diagnosed it as “just something you’ve eaten” and she thought (rightly) it was more serious. There was no way I would put her in danger of any further surgery by causing the wound to re-open. She was the one who started asking for sex to resume. I see this situation as qualitatively different from “I’m not putting out for you because you did not wash up while I was watching ‘Desperate Housefwifes’ and by waiting for me to wash up with you it is now too late”. But hard cases make bad law. Surely we all should be working within our marriages to express love for our spouses and to make the relationship as near as we can to the idealised form, like Christ and His church.
@DH, I agree, what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. I believe that tere was a case of church discipline in the 17th Century in which a woman had her husband brought before the church and required to provide her with her conjugal rights. And yes, I was talking about two separate issues. Any time a person has sex outside marriage should require a separate consent. I see sex within marriage as having implied consent unless something drastic has happened to the relationship.
Oh please. Women love being SAHMs. That’s why they stop working. Not because their husband “made” them. And there is something called alimony. As for the deadbeats, you’ve got to be kidding. Anecdotes are you. Check the stats. The overwhelming majority of men pay, and paid before the draonian Federal laws were put in place. Women institute the divorce, in most cases. And, in most cases, don’t even CLAIM abuse or adultery, let alone rape, are the reasons.
Yeah, in time, unless she remarries, her SOL goes down. But, in the meantime, she gets the house, the kids, everything in the house, the car and money from him (settlement, alimony, child support, etc). And she gets rid of him. And, maybe she can remarry. Middle aged, middle class men dread divorce, not because they are so happy in their marriages, but because they know they will get screwed financially and, worse yet, cut off from their kids (in many cases) in divorce. Middle aged, middle class women seek divorce, not because their husbands are monsters but because they are tired of them, bored, restlesss, hypergamous, unhaaaaaaapy, etc, etc., and know that they will get cash and prizes too.
Your notions have been refuted so many times it’s not even funny. Do you really think the folks here, who have been through all of this personally (many of them) and have heard it all a thousand times, are going to fall for your “women suffer from divorce” BS?
I really don’t know why people feed that troll.
Bored? I don’t know. I skip past her comments.
The point wasn’t to advocate rape DH. Though you jumping straight to that conclusion is quite normal for feminists. The point is to make you understand that by allowing a spouse to unilaterally withhold sex is inviting all manner of problems into the marriage. Marital rape being argued by feminists was just an example of how there is no difference between a liberal wife withholding sex and a traditional wife doing it. If there is nothing wrong with you or your spouse, physically or mentally, why would a spouse be withholding sex from the other, if not for punishment? Why the need for wide spread law covering women who should be given sex to their husbands frequently? The point of marriage is to make both spouses content in a lasting, physical relationship that produces healthy children who are then raised correctly, at least in a Christian sense. A rapist doesn’t make a good husband by definition and neither does a whore.
We all know that real, physical rape is wrong. Christians also understand that with holding love and affection from a spouse is also wrong. If two people took a decision to get married, they shouldn’t be using sex as a punishment.
This is the problem with liberals and feminists, you cannot argue the hard points because, to them, they know the only right answer. If you answer differently, you’re immediately a racist, a bigot, a women hater, a rapist, a nazi or probably all of the above.
The more I hear DH go on wild tangents, the more I realise why I don’t want or need some shrill, feminist as a wife. Seriously, go away, go sleep with some other man and be the whore you are. Perhaps try Jezebel, they seem to be more your type.
I’m done.
ballista:
I’m an atheist. I don’t deal in “sanctity.” Marriage existed long before Judaism, let alone Christianity, and the Catholic Church did not even consider marriage a “sacrament” until the Counter Reformation. Marriage exists in almost ever human society, no matter what the religion or even if there is no religion. For folks who want to argue from a Christian or other religous perspective, that’s fine. But DH and co are arguing more generally. And, for us non religous folks, marriage is a human institution governed by human law and societal norms. For marriage to work, there has to be a quid pro quo. This was recognized, at least implicitly, in the old school, marriage 1.0, which Christians and believers in general had no problem with. Take away the quid, and there is no quo. I’m sorry if that offends your religous sensibilities, but it is a fact.
“A married woman will have 100% of the marital assets and access to all of her husband’s income. ”
so you think men are women’s property? feminism means nothing to you?
from the above “marriage in western society go back a century” link:
“Starviolet is right. Logically, divorce is going to result in a reduced standard of living for both husband and wife. ”
duh, NSS
http://www.acbr.com/biglie.htm
Rock throwing peasant – I agree that divorce is emotional and not rational for most. Which s exactl why I don’t think that women are divorcing for “cash and prizes”. There will be less money for both of them in a divorce. The money was taxed before the divorce as well. In most cases divorce is not financially motivated.
And why exactly women are women supposed to be lining up to marry some dude who views the wife as little more than a highly paid whore who gets to share “his” property in exchange for putting out?
I will note only that Dumb Harlot, like almost all feminists, reduces a woman’s value to her reproductive organs. Men, OTOH, when deciding with whom to share their property, tend to look at a broader spectrum of value. At least the wise ones do.
Ruddyturnstone has already addressed the specious scare quotes.
Shocking, isn’t it, DH, that men actually expect that marriage will come with benefits for them, as well as for their wives. No scare quotes, pre marriage, it is HIS money. She wants access to it. To support herself and the kids she wants to have. And she wants emotional intimacy and tenderness. In return, he wants regular sex and access to her childbearing capabilities. That’s what marriage is, or should be, all about. It’s a contract. A deal. It is NOT scandalous that men should actually want something out of the deal, in return for what they put into it. Nor that one of, if not the main, thing that they want is to satisfy their relentless sex drive.
Wow, you guys are really making marriage look SUPER attractive. Gee, what greater privilege could there be to have some guy pick me to be contractually bound to him for “regular sex and access to [my] childbearing capabilities.” Thanks, but I’ll pass. I’d prefer to be single and living with my cats than thought of as little more than a vagina-and-uterus.
Fortunately, marriage is not what you describe. First of all, men are not emotionally cold monsters who don’t care about an emotional intimacy and support from their wives. Secondly, women aren’t asexual. We want sex too! Thirdly, men aren’t losing economically in the deal. These days women are usually contributing (often substantially or even predominantly) to the household income. And even a traditional marriage, men have the benefit of the woman’s full-time labor taking care of the house and kids. That is not economically insignificant and this labor frees the man up to focus on his job.
” than thought of as little more than a vagina-and-uterus”
Which is all your lover thinks of you… but nevermind that…
“Trad Cons have misunderstood this effect, and instead misattributed productive and civilized behavior among men to an effect of women being present.”
But women are present everywhere: communism, fascism, despotism, tyranny, etc. This is one case where corellation does not mean causation.
ar10308 says:
” than thought of as little more than a vagina-and-uterus”
Which is all your lover thinks of you… but nevermind that…
Not necessarily. But in any case, I’m not contractually bound to a lover for life.
Starviolet is right. Logically, divorce is going to result in a reduced standard of living for both husband and wife.
———————————————————
Sure but she doesnt actually understand this, REALLY understand it until the magical days of the temporary orders are nearly over. Then the vast majority of frivorcing women have an epiphany and either try and reconcile, or try and create more drama in the process. Some want the state to formally declare the husband is an asshole, stamped and filed.
Rock throwing peasant – I agree that divorce is emotional and not rational for most. Which s exactl why I don’t think that women are divorcing for “cash and prizes”. There will be less money for both of them in a divorce. The money was taxed before the divorce as well. In most cases divorce is not financially motivated.
And his income is still taxed. Instead of paying for two adults and two children on $100,000 in shared income, the person awarded custody of the two children now pays for one adult and two children on an adjusted income of $80,000. Considering the cost of supporting an adult is more than a child (gas, food, clothes, incidentals), there is a net gain.
I think we’re not that far off. I think you have the impression that “Cash and prizes” is the only reason why I think women initiate divorce far more often. No, I don’t think that’s it. I do think they’re sold on the “happily ever after on his dime” story. No, they initiate divorce for a myraid of reasons. Once invested in divorce, it becomes far more about cash and prizes, though. The actual reason for the divorce goes out the window because the man is out of her life as soon as divorce initiates. So, all focus goes to “cash and prizes,” with the biggest asset being the children.
DH I remarked at oz conservative that either you are stupid or disingenuous. I lean towards the former. Feminists wanted to do away with institution of marriage, and they have succeeded a great deal. It’s not a matter of great complexity as to why they would then be so interested in changing(perverting) it when they had nothing to do with it and were out there being “strong and independent”.
http://fullofgraceseasonedwithsalt.blogspot.in/2010/03/feminists-as-mistakes-of-nature.html
IOW another brainwashed pawn.
“And even a traditional marriage, men have the benefit of the woman’s full-time labor taking care of the house and kids.”
wth is a traditional marriage when everything about it has been changed? call that ‘traditional roles’, or rather 1950s roles for the married women who didn’t have to work.
DH arguments here are so predictable we could build a quick bot to respond.
he cannot expect spicy sex on tap
what about old age?
what about the hypothetical debilitating car wreck
Any man marrying for sex only is bad in the first place
OY
I thought she could do better.
Fact is if men realized the view women have about sex in marriage men would marry even less than they already are. Men marry and walk into the mine field today because they expect to have sex (I did NOT say they ONLY expect sex in the reloationship). If they knew sex would not occur, or be rare, or humilating to ask and be rejected 4/5 times, etc etc…..there would be few men willing to marry.
Men marry for sex that is permitted, its a huge motive, get over it
Has anyone considered that DH not just has a hamster, but *is* a hamster?
Just asking.
@DH
And why exactly women are women supposed to be lining up to marry some dude who views the wife as little more than a highly paid whore who gets to share “his” property in exchange for putting out?
No, no, she is his property. Get it right! And it is way more than “little more”, but it is that too, although perhaps more a slut, depending on how much jewellery she gets.
I’d prefer to be single and living with my cats than thought of as little more than a vagina-and-uterus.
You could be that and much MORE! A man will treasure his property (fuck toy) and look to her for support. She gets sex and compassion. Why do feminists always reduce women to a wet hole, as if that’s all they have to offer?
I think we’re not that far off. I think you have the impression that “Cash and prizes” is the only reason why I think women initiate divorce far more often. No, I don’t think that’s it. I do think they’re sold on the “happily ever after on his dime” story. No, they initiate divorce for a myraid of reasons. Once invested in divorce, it becomes far more about cash and prizes, though. The actual reason for the divorce goes out the window because the man is out of her life as soon as divorce initiates. So, all focus goes to “cash and prizes,” with the biggest asset being the children.
——————————————
I believe overt forethought re cash and prizes is kind of rare. The so called reasons for the divorce are mainly emotional defects, the cash is a tiny comfort, a wink towards the practical, even if she knows factually there is not enough. She will get the immediate benefit of her drug of choice, empathy. She has been getting smaller doses from the preceding drama, but the divorce will assure it is maintained for months.
CL, What are you talking about? I didn’t reduce women to a “wet hole.” Ruddyturnstone at 10:39 a.m. is the one saying men get married for regular sex and access to women’s childbearing capabilities.
I’m the one saying that women DON’T want or need to enter an arrangement that reduces them in that way. Also, I don’t believe for an instant that men are entering marriage just for a vagina-and-uterus. Unlike Mr. Turnstone and many of the folks here, I think men generally, you know, LIKE their wives.
“I do not believe that most women are financially motivated to divorce by “cash and prizes”. A married woman will have 100% of the marital assets and access to all of her husband’s income. If they divorce she will have at best half. ”
I guess you’ve never heard of men being soaked for so much alimony and child support that they have to live in their cars or move into a homeless shelter. Some divorced husbands are being ordered to pay literally more than they earn. Most divorced wives get the house, which is their former family’s greatest asset. And all of this plus being free from their horrible, boring, stable, dependable provider.
I guess she’s never heard of men going to jail for child support and alimony either?
I think this idea that sex is something women do FOR men in exchange for other things is completely bizarre. It certainly seems to be culturally specific to Christian traditionalists. In Orthodox Jewish tradition, sexual satisfaction is considered to be a duty the husband owes to the wife, who has a right to it. This call the mitzvot of onah. Husbands can get exemptions for things like military service, and men who have jobs that require them to travel have less of an obligation. But sex, including nonprocreative sex, is considered a duty he owes to her.
Now, I don’t advocate this. I think the duty goes both ways. But the point is that not all cultures see women as asexual creatures who trade their bodies.
The real peterman – a man being ordered to pay more than he earns doesn’t put any additional money in the ex wife’s pocket. The scenario that you describe is not common. Most men don’t even pay enough child support to cover half the costs of raising their child.
No, but it puts him in contempt of the court order which in turn means he could go to jail. Once a man goes to jail, you might as well put a gun to his head and pull the trigger. He ain’t going to work for you no more!
Most men don’t even pay enough child support to cover half the costs of raising their child.
Gotta source for that?
“Starviolet is right. Logically, divorce is going to result in a reduced standard of living for both husband and wife. ”
Well that’s why Lenore Weitzman’s lies which were then put into practice(as given above) and feminist a-bloo a-bloo about poor single divorced mothers saw to that men would get more than their fair share of the reduction.
http://www.fisheaters.com/gb8.html
“Also, I don’t believe for an instant that men are entering marriage just for a vagina-and-uterus. ”
again with the stupidity.
“just for” applies when they are getting the said things, the vagina and uterus status don’t change based on woman’s marriage state because feminists have corrupted the whole concept under the guise of freedom, equality, liberty, women’s right to body, marital rape and yada yada yada. They used to do when husbands were “raping” their wives, and getting raped in return.
Today men are finding that women’s hearts are not that far from their vaginas.
Just leave DH.
And since when is it ‘their child’? We all know that it’s the woman’s child. Fuck these women are off the chart today, their hamsters are on full retard mode!
@ Starviolet
BS, it happened to me. I live in poverty while 3/4 of my income is taken. Her equivalent income is after extracting from me is around 90k. Yet she continues to whine about how poor she is.
DH, I am also stating that women are not reduced by entering into a traditional marriage. After all, I clearly stated that you could aspire to be more than “just a vagina-and-uterus”, yet you still have those parts and if you like sex, they are going to be utilized.
Why does it bother you if a man wants this and a woman agrees to it? Why do you keep posting on these blogs as if looking for approval?
CL,
What are you arguing with me about exactly? Again, I am NOT the one who said that women are viewed by their men as a mere vagina-and-uterus.
And where do you get the notion that I am commenting “as if looking for approval.” If I were looking for approval, would I not be telling you and the other commenters here how right they are?
Namae nanka,
Same goes for you. I am not the one saying men marry women “just for” the uterus and vagina. I am saying the opposite.
Are Women More Ethical than Men?.
@ Rock throwing peasant
typical child support payment census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-99.pdf
costs of raising a child – cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/CRC/crc2004.pdf
Most men aren’t being forced to pay large amounts of child support.Single mothers do most of the work and cover most of the financial costs of raising a child.
Rollo Tomassi says,
Christians are pussywhipped before they ever see a pussy.
Boy, you said a mouthfull (pun intended). 😉
lozzozozlzlozozzoozozz
nice post dalrockssz!!!! i totally agreeez!!! i posted on this ahwiel backz as neoocnths jonah golberg stated “WOMEN TaMe MENZ!! ” lzozozolzllz
http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/jonah-goldbergs-primal-lord-of-the-flies-savagery-tamed-by-his-beuatiful-wife/
nd Jonah Goldberg’s Primal “Lord of The Flies Neocon Savagery” Tamed by His Beuatiful (lozl) Wife!!
omg lozlzl chekc out jonah goldberg’s wife!!
“nuff said!” lzozlzl!
a most civilizing force that tamed the savage, primal jonah goldberg!!
jonah writes:
“March 10, 2010 12:00 A.M.
Where Feminists Get It Right
Women civilize men. ’Nuff said.
“nuff said!” lzozlzl!
The reason strikes me as fairly simple. Women civilize men. As a general rule, men will only be as civilized as female expectations and demands force them to be. “Liberate” men from those expectations, and Lord of the Flies logic kicks in. Liberate women from this barbarism, and male decency will soon follow.
–http://article.nationalreview.com/427383/where-feminists-get-it-right/jonah-goldberg
without jonah goldberg’s wife’s arresting beauty (lozllz!), neocon woman expectations, and neocon woman demands (lzozll! omg lozlzlz!), jonah goldberg would be out playing lord of the flies, running around with no shirt on down K street, rockin’ out with his goldberg neocon cock (neocock) out, ducking into bars to ravage all that his rightfully his as an untamed beta-male neocon. lozlzlzl!
why do neocons think that we are all like them?
also, throughout the history of mankind, it has been men who have laid down the law–from homer and moses on down–not pussified neoconning goldberg’s wife & her feminist friends. lzozll! i mean lookw hat the fmeinist movement has done to the family lzzozlzl! WTF is goldberg thinking????? Single mother familes r good?? Have you ever dated a few chicks with no fatehrs goldberg? If so, and you still wnat fatherless families, where teh neocons repalce teh father with debt-based fiat dolalrs, you hate women & love ur kinky kink & shiznit yo.
The cherubic, fat-faced Jonah Goldberg writes,
“March 10, 2010 12:00 A.M.
Where Feminists Get It Right
Women civilize men. ’Nuff said.
The reason strikes me as fairly simple. Women civilize men. As a general rule, men will only be as civilized as female expectations and demands force them to be. “Liberate” men from those expectations, and Lord of the Flies logic kicks in. Liberate women from this barbarism, and male decency will soon follow.
–http://article.nationalreview.com/427383/where-feminists-get-it-right/jonah-goldberg
hahahahah! what goldberg is saying that is if his wife didn’t lay down the law, he would be a beasty man alpha male, smacking women around, rocking out with his cock out, as that is in Jonah Goldberg’s true, deep, neocon nature. lozllz! he admits it! and then he projects his neocon nature on the entire world as neocons do to justify their pre-emptive, illegal, unconstitutional wars! lzozll!
you guys do understand that feminism is an illegal, pre-emptive war waged against men, the family, and children to profit the fiat neocons, right? lozlzl!
http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/
for they make their profits by debauching currencies and cultures. lolzlzl! neocons r funny!
jonah goldberg states we don’t have enough feminismlozllzlz! how many more families must be destoryed by feminism. how many more babies might be murdered by the neocon’s/feminist’s abortion regime?
how many more fathers must be incarcerated by teh neocon fiat state and have tehir children taken from them by goldberg et al.’s feminist police state, before it is enough for goldberg?
does the neocon’s lust for debauchery, destruction, and dehumanization know no bounds. or what? lzolzl!
everyone ought read this book!
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1581825943/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt/104-4861295-3739101?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
“59 5-Star Reviews on Amazon: “totalitarian,” “reign of terror,” “Nazi,” “bolshevik,” say readers about the divorce machinery” writes baskerville @ http://stephenbaskerville.blogspot.com/
OMG! LZOZLZLZLL!!
bolshevik!! that is soooooooooooo neoconnish!!
google:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=neocons+bolsheviks
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104×721862
“Neo-cons: the modern day Bolsheviks”
Jonah Goldberg is soooooooooooooo Bolshevik. lzozllz.
“To say that liberalism is rooted in fascism because Mussolini had once been a socialist says that Goldberg’s …neo-conservatism must be rooted in Communism. Look at the roots of prominent neocons: Irving Kristol is a former Trotskyist and Josh Muravchik is a YPSL alum. …Jonah Goldberg …therefore Bolshevik Conservatives? … ” –http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/117981
finally, check out on how the fiat masters re-engineered women via feminism–the feminism jonah goldberg exalts lzozllzlz!!
http://www.savethemales.ca/001904.html
Feminism is an excellent example of how the Rockefeller mega cartel uses the awesome power of the mass media (i.e. propaganda.) to control society.
In 40 short years, many women have lost touch with their natural loving instincts. Consequently, the family is in disarray, sexual depravity is rampant and birth rates have plummeted.
–http://www.savethemales.ca/001904.html
Goldberg sees depopulation and the decline of birth rates as a good thing. lozlzlzlzl !!!
“Forgetting the question of decency and morality for a moment, there’s the matter of national interests. Female equality seems to be a pretty reliable treatment for many of the world’s worst pathologies. Population growth in the Third World tends to go down as female literacy goes up. Indeed, female empowerment might be the single best weapon in the “root causes” arsenal in the war on terror.” –http://article.nationalreview.com/427383/where-feminists-get-it-right/jonah-goldberg?page=2
as a neocon it is jonah goldberg’s DIVINE RIGHT to plan and effect the world’s population. lozlzl!
is it any wonder the trotskyite, power-hungry, neocons had to kill the memory of edmund burke, moses, jesus, homer, and russell kirk? lozlzlz! to make room for jonah goldberg’s chubby face & endless neocon betamale prattling, as his wife keeps him tame, dulling his true, inherent, lord of the flies nature? lozlzl
zozozozozozozozozlzozo
@7man. 3/4 of your income really? Do you mind sharing what state you live in?
@DH
If I were looking for approval, would I not be telling you and the other commenters here how right they are?
No, you want us to accept your choices. None of the men had tried to reduce a woman to “little more than a vagina-and-uterus.” There was some sarcasm and exxageration to show this is absurd but is kinda the state women cave created. The men want more than that from a woman, yet you reduced it to that.
It seems that no one has been “saying [or advocating] men marry women ‘just for’ the uterus and vagina.” Yet DH is going on and on about this. DH, whose opinion are you taking issue with?
Starviolet, maybe you should email Charles Bruce and ask him how his ‘equitable’ divorce is going:
http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/the-meaning-of-sacrifice/
Cane Caldo
Yesterday I was reading up on the legal history of adultery, and came across the phrase “alienation of affection”. I’d never heard of it before.
Interesting that it was new to you, it used to be a term that was quite common. Probably I watch more old movies, and read more books written before 1960 than most people.
FH says:Is he secretly working for a law firm by any chance?!
My money says he’s rationalizing his wife’s behavior.
Very possible, but she’s hardly unique. This kind of thinking is embedded in Churchian circles rather deeply. And let me remind you, Cane Caldo, this is a leader of the SBC – you know, the hardline types you grew up with? These are the men who teach Bible to preachers, who then teach other men.
This is why churchgoing men need Game. Because “just read the Bible” doesn’t work. Because men like Mohler teach the Bible their way, to preachers who then teach entire churches.
Because Game comes from a different angle, and because Game techniques work even when a man expects them to fail, there is not going to be as much resistance in the mind of a churchgoing man, as there will be if you sit down with him and tell him that his pastor, his men’s group leader, his Sunday school leader, and pretty much all the people who have ever taught Bible to him were wrong in critical ways, but you are right.
George Gilder is fairly interesting when he sticks to things he knows about. Unfortunately he’s apparently a hopeless neo-Victorian pedestalizer when it comes to women. The absurd notion that “women civilize men” is very common at places like National Review. The reality as we know here in the androsphere is that men build civilizations, women socialize boys and girls.
The tradcon / socon world hasn’t even really discovered hypergamy yet, so they persist in the error that women are naturally monogamous, even when data from the real world such as divorce data, out-of-marriage birth data, etc. are in their faces. Pretty lies, indeed.
@Starviolet
This happened in Minnesota.
Tried to get that second link to load and it’s just not working. I found the USDA calculator Calculator.
Not seeing how the need isn’t met, especially factoring in providing healthcare costs. If you add child support to healthcare and other means of support (for example, what is not factored is the expense when the father [or noncustodial] has the child for the court appointed days). So, while support can be pegged at X dollars, is that for true 100% of the time custody or for 70% or so custody? Do you understand what I mean? I may not be clear. If the custodial parent has 70% custody, they don’t get awarded money for 100% of the costs to raise the child for 70$ of the time.
In PA, if I had the standard 70/30 split, I’d be looking at approx $2,000 a month in support and I’d be on the bill for healthcare costs. I do not make a princely living, by any means, and it would reduce my income to almost nothing (literally). It would be about 75% taken. Meanwhile, the wife who racked up $50,000 in credit card debt would have $2,000 tax free to add to her income until the boys turn 18.
CL,
OK, I’ve said this numerous times and referenced this numerous times in the thread. I couldn’t have made it clearer. The comment which argues that men want wives to serve as vagina-and-uterus is this one from Ruddyturnstone at 10:39 a.m.:
Shocking, isn’t it, DH, that men actually expect that marriage will come with benefits for them, as well as for their wives. No scare quotes, pre marriage, it is HIS money. She wants access to it. To support herself and the kids she wants to have. And she wants emotional intimacy and tenderness. In return, he wants regular sex and access to her childbearing capabilities. That’s what marriage is, or should be, all about. It’s a contract. A deal. It is NOT scandalous that men should actually want something out of the deal, in return for what they put into it. Nor that one of, if not the main, thing that they want is to satisfy their relentless sex drive.
I quoted it verbatim in my initial response to it at 10:55 a.m. At 11:11 a.m., you said in response to my comment that feminists always want to reduce women to nothing more than a “wet hole.” You were wrong. It was Mr. Turnstone’s comment that reduced women in this way. Fine, if you want to explain away what he said as hyperbole, go for it. But don’t turn this around on me.
As for me wanting the approval of folks like you, that is pure delusional self-flattery. Why can’t you just accept that sometimes people enjoy talking to those on the other side of the aisle, CL?
Relevant to this discussion (and a recent article in NYT that claimed there’s no need for men) may be this bit of news about a modern African version of Lysistrata:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19389625
@DH
Ruddyturnstone did not reduce a woman to that, but did make it clear that sex was part of the deal. As such he never said that was ALL a woman was good for. You misread and exaggerated and are arguing against a position that was never advocated.
The Catholic Church gets this right (though you’ll have to look hard to find a priest to tell you about it today). The term used is “marriage debt,” and it refers specifically to the fact that both parties owe their spouse sex whenever asked, with reasonable exceptions for serious illness or pain. Headaches don’t count: if your spouse wants sex and you have a headache, you suck it up and perform anyway. It’s a family obligation, and you can’t shrug it off any more than you’d say, “Nah, I have a headache,” when you hear your child crying in the night.
@ rock throwing peasant
The average child support payment is about $350 the median is even less than that. When I look at child support and alimony laws for various states I am not seeing any where someone can be forced to give away 75% of their income in child support and alimony. I’m sure that there are some cases somewhere where men we treated unfairly, but I suspect that these cases are far from typical.
I don’t think many women turn to divorce for the cash and prizes, but I do think that during the process, that can become an incentive — or at the very least, they can soothe any worries about poverty she might have that otherwise might make her reconsider. I also think there are many cases where, though the woman may not focus on the money she will get out of it, she does enjoy the damage she will be doing to her ex by taking it away from him — even if most of it goes to the lawyers.
And let’s be real: during the marriage, she may have access to 100% of the money, but she also has a husband helping to spend it and criticizing her spending. Unless he’s totally whipped, she can’t just spend on whatever she likes, and he might buy something like a bass boat that she has no interest in at all. (Ever heard a woman talk about a major expenditure by her husband as if he stole it from her?)
After the divorce, she may only get half or less, but she can spend it on whatever she likes, without him looking over her shoulder. So she goes from 50% control over 100% of the money, to 100% control over 50% of the money, or even 100% control over 25% of the money. The most important part for someone fed up with a marriage is the 100% control, even if the amount is less in the end.
I suspect that the moon is made of cheese. Doesn’t make it so.
“George Gilder is fairly interesting when he sticks to things he knows about.”
Gilder should have shut up 20 years ago. He was a techno-geek for a long time and almost everyone who followed his recommendations lost their shirts.
As for his “women civilize men” nonsense, I tell these types that men created civilization. If anything, men civilize women. After all, all you have to do is look at what’s happened to many women today since men have failed in their duty to civilize them.
@Harlot
“I think this idea that sex is something women do FOR men in exchange for other things is completely bizarre.”
It’s a very easy and simple concept.
It’s the very reason why prostitution exists. Sex for money.
Except in marriage, it’s permanent.
In any case, why should women be able to withdraw his only sexual outlet, while the man has no way to withdraw his income, strength, security or assets from her?
@Starviolet, I pay 7 times that (combined spousal support and child support) and make 60K. She makes 45K (before transfer payments). My arrears are not trivial either. My situation may be extreme, but similar situations are not that rare.
The law is not followed and imputed income can result in bizarre outcomes. Then there is no recourse for adjustment (although the law says there is). Family court is less realistic than the IRS.
When I look at child support and alimony laws for various states I am not seeing any where someone can be forced to give away 75% of their income in child support and alimony. I’m sure that there are some cases somewhere where men we treated unfairly, but I suspect that these cases are far from typical.
And the cost of medical insurance? And is it for what % of custody? These questions matter.
No. I don’t know how you can’t find it. In PA, it’s a calculation. Plug in the numbers and the money is taken from your paycheck (and, as a bonus, you get to pay for the DRS visit in which they take your money, since you’re the one that “owes”). There was no bargaining to it. We sat down, gave income figures, gave insurance numbers, other expenses associated with the boys, and it cranked out $2,000 a month for a guy making under $50,000 a year. I was able to mitigate that amount, but only because custody shifted for one son and because she made more than I did, but otherwise my take home for a month would be $600 a month after support.
CL,
Well, now we’re getting somewhere. Don’t forget you misread my comment to try to make feminists out to somehow “reduce” women. As for your interpretation of Ruddyturnstone’s comment, mmmm, I don’t know. He is saying that marriage is a quid pro quo in which women are looking for dollars and emotional intimacy and the men in it for sex and childbearing services. I disagree. I think men care a lot about emotional intimacy with women.
Danger at 1:08 p.m.,
Thank you for proving my point that traditionalists think of marriage as little more than prostitution.
You are quite right that men and women do engage in quid pro quo exchanges of money-for-sex. But the point is that this is not inevitably so. You all seem to forget that women have sexual needs too. It’s not JUST something women do for men.
It’s not morally okay for either husbands or wives to withdraw sexually from each other. And ideally, a woman will support herself, but if you enter into an arrangement where you’re supporting the woman, then, yeah, you are taking on a major responsibility. I’m not the one advocating that kind of arrangement.
DH,
Sex IS emotional intimacy for men.
Need I add “in a marriage/LTR” to my last comment?
The kind of lies in the OP are not only disgusting and pathetic in an of themselves, but they offend me deeply, because I know so many decent people getting destroyed by these lies, and their children too. They are immediately, directly harming children and families and that really makes me angry. I can’t just sneer at the irony because it is too grievous.
great comments in here today, guys.
Stingray says:
Sex IS emotional intimacy for men. (You also added “in an LTR or marriage.”)
I totally agree that it CAN be — same for women too. But it’s hard to view sex as “emotional intimacy,” when it’s framed as an obligation the woman has in exchange for financial support and other kinds of emotional intimacy. One reason sex IS so emotionally intimate is that it’s about partners providing pleasure for each other, not one partner demanding sex as a quid pro quo.
Why not ask her, or any other woman, why she does not protest the unfairness of child support laws? That will tell you more about what women are about, than anything else.
Um, because I don’t think they’re unfair. Look, if I have a kid and get divorced, I’ll be the one paying support because my husband will have primary custody. But it seems incredibly burdensome to expect the primary caretaker of young children to provide an accounting of every dime spent.
Starviolet,
I honestly believe you are making a good faith effort, given information you have read. I don’t think you’re looking to cut corners or hedge data.
I just telling you that the reality I faced was not $350 a month.
On Weds, we have yet another custody meeting. The oldest is now asking for joint custody and I have two therapists who will call in, extending support for joint custody (one was her “hired gun” that is now in my camp). The problem is, I have to get her to agree to give up custody and the support money, because at this stage we can’t force an agreement (going before a concilliator, not a judge). I anticipate her refusing and forcing us before a judge. My lawyer said the judge will take my son’s testimony (he’s old enough for his opinion to matter), the word of therapists, and (likely) the concilliator before a decision. Last time we met, the concilliator was trying to get to joint custody and she flatly refused. She has a financial interest in this.
If her financial needs were not being met, why not pass half the burden to me? You know, let me absorb half the costs by feeding, housing, clothing him half the time.
@ DH:
>>First of all, men are not emotionally cold monsters who don’t care about an emotional intimacy and support from their wives.
But if we act nice & love & intimate & soft, we’re no longer the guy you were interested in. We turn into doormats. What you actually want, is to keep wanting that stuff, because once you get it, you are not haaaaapy.
>>Secondly, women aren’t asexual. We want sex too!
Indeed. Preferably with as many Alpha bad boys as possible, then when the wear & tear starts getting to you and the crow’s feet start showing up, then you want either a (somehow) marriage-oriented alpha, or failing that, a really strong beta provider.
>>>Thirdly, men aren’t losing economically in the deal. These days women are usually contributing (often substantially or even predominantly) to the household income.
Patently false. You know, there are legal publications that do regular accountings of divorce settlements. Men get stuck paying long after the marriage shatters – >70% of the time at her behest. And, the majority of men in marriage are still the primary breadwinner, it doesn’t matter how many times Hannah Rosin predicts that men are done as a subspecies. I don’t practice family law but the falsity of your assertions on this point can be factually disproved – a good job for any law student reading this blog.
TFH,
I won’t say my sons are better off in a broken house, because my wife and I neer fought. We may have had a loveless/unhaaappy marriage, but it wasn’t a poisoned envornoment.
That said, I’ve woken from my slumber. I’m now more committed to being a father and training my sons to be strong in faith and strong men (i.e. not beta or Churchians). I’m about 2/3rds through a book for fathers in my situation to help them build themselves and raise godly, masculine boys. I credit sites, like this, with speeding me through the stages of divorce to a healthy point of getting on with my life in a positive direction.
The Mohler quote from the OP:
I agree that it is good for a man to live in purity and to be careful to live, talk, lead and love in a way that helps his wife to find fulfillment…why not exhort men to this good conduct?
Where I think he is wrong is to say that women are somehow justified in choosing not to obey God if their husbands are not doing these things. We will each answer for our own sins someday.
On the issue of porn: I looked at 1 Cor 7:5 again just to double check; here is what is does not say:
On the marital rape conversation: I’ve been called a rape apologist by saying this, but I don’t see how you can rape your own wife. I can’t steal my own car. I’m allowed to use it whenever I want.
Civilization… we’ll miss that when it’s gone. Thank you, progressives and feminazis.
There is a reason I left the SBC. One way to look at it is that I had grown weary of the old hypocrisies, and wanted to experience some new ones.
Depending on what you mean by Game: smarter bloggers than I are now disagreeing with you; some outright, some gradually.
More importantly: if you think Christian men are generally reading scripture for their own edification–for love of that scripture itself; as a child sits at the feet of a beloved master–then you’re fooling yourself. It isn’t the problem that men lack understanding. The problem is they assume they understand, and that scripture is confirmation of what they already know.
Men like Mohler are stumbling blocks, but the way existed before them. We don’t abandon the road because something is in the way. We clear it. In so far as Game can be the trail of powder to the clearing blast of good theology, I have no problem with it.
But more and more I read supposedly Christian men desiring to blow up not just the stumbling block, but the church beside the road, the paving stones themselves, and any men and women they can throw in within the radius: I say NO.
You really have to stop using the phrase “Trad Con.” In the first place, “Traditional conservative” is a redundancy; from whom are you trying to distinguish them? Non-traditional conservatives? For someone like me who is not familiar with the Dalrockosphere’s redefinition of the plain meaning of words, it is hard to follow you.
For instance, you write:
This is nonsensical on its face. A traditional conservative, insofar as he is traditional and conservative, cannot by definition “act … like a drift sock.” If he is “simply act[ing] as a drag against … the current direction of change,” rather than endeavoring to alter that direction back to traditional modes, he is not conservative; he is an accomplice of the change-agent. A Trad Con “stands athwart history yelling, ‘Stop!'” He doesn’t stand beside history waving it through like a matador.
In poli-economic terms, there are government spending advocates, there are spending opponents, and there are those who seek to slow the rate of spending growth. A great deal of what’s labeled modern “conservatism” finds refuge in the latter category. But Trad Cons are for rollback. Not containment, not detente, and certainly not for resigning oneself to “inevitability” and the sovereignty of the idols of the age.
You would be better off identifying these people for who they really are. If Pastor Driscoll or Dr. Moehler is indeed an unwitting radical in the traditionalist’s clothing, it doesn’t matter how they label themselves (in fact, they have a positive incentive to mislabel themselves). All that matters is the descriptive term.
In this case they seem like cryptofeminists. Your beef isn’t with the fact that they are “conserving” a “tradition.” You just think they are conserving the wrong tradition, a relatively modern one. If anything they need to become more traditional and locate the focus of their conservation in the fundaments of the culture, such as the Bible, great art, literature, and perhaps venerable political customs, rather than the faddish dogmas of the left.
I am a traditional conservative, through and through. I have not been fooled by the dogmas of the 20th century. I refuse to even use the word “capitalism” because it is a Marxist term. Ditto “homosexual” — as if sodomy somehow became elevated to the equal of procreative sex, to the point of establishing the ability to “choose” one’s identity around a predilection. And it pains me to even type in quotes “same-sex marriage”: we concede the premises of arguments before we ever engage them, and then we wonder why we are always grasping for defenses against “bigotry” (which never appease anyway).
Words matter. Ideas count. Use them more carefully and deliberately. If you truly want to engage the Driscolls and Moehlers of the world, begin by labeling them accurately, and take the fight to them for misrepresenting themselves. Your criticism otherwise is lost before you get started. In your intramural squabbling, you inadvertently support the feminist prerogative to define the bounds of legitimacy. Like you, Driscoll and Moehler think they are supporting tradition rather than the comfortable legitimacy of the enemies of tradition. That makes them our allies, not our opponents, if only we can agree on the error.
We are preoccupied fighting each other rather than deploying the one strategy that can unite: fraternal correction. Get in the business of coalition building. Find allies rather than reasons for alienating those with whom you agree 80% of the time.
Matt
@Sunshinemary
The more fundamental problem is he sets the wife up as the authority. Her sex drive is the arbiter of what is righteous or not, and he is living a righteous life in order to please his wife. Then he makes it worse by stating that without having a wife to be accountable to, Christian men will be uncouth.
On the marital rape conversation: I’ve been called a rape apologist by saying this, but I don’t see how you can rape your own wife. I can’t steal my own car. I’m allowed to use it whenever I want.
Except that you are not an “it,” SSM. You are a human being. You have a will that matters as much as your husband’s matters. It would not be okay for your husband to force you to have sex against your will. And you have a right to be safe from assault in your own home.
@Harlot
“Thank you for proving my point that traditionalists think of marriage as little more than prostitution.
You are quite right that men and women do engage in quid pro quo exchanges of money-for-sex. But the point is that this is not inevitably so. You all seem to forget that women have sexual needs too. It’s not JUST something women do for men.
It’s not morally okay for either husbands or wives to withdraw sexually from each other. And ideally, a woman will support herself, but if you enter into an arrangement where you’re supporting the woman, then, yeah, you are taking on a major responsibility. I’m not the one advocating that kind of arrangement.
”
Neat trick: I say that marriage includes trading of sex for money/security and you accuse me of saying that is ALL that it is.
It’s common knowledge in the world of biology that MEN have testosterone and actually fight for the ability to mate with women. It’s fairly clear that sex drive is FAR greater in men than it is in women. If not, then we would not even be having this discussion. A wife witholding sex would be a non-issue.
Yet you are still quite adept at avoiding my point, that men are beholden to the marriage contract, even post-divorce, where-as women are not. Women can withdraw man’s ability to satisfy his intense biological desire, but she pays no price for it. Where-as men pay a price for picking up their things and walking away.
All marriage (and divorce) is supporting the woman. All you need to do is take a gander at family court to prove that point.
“Men are like trucks: they drive straighter with a weighted load.”
Is he saying we should date fat chicks? Who should I believe? This Driscoll fellow or Roosh?
@Cane Caldo
I’m not sure what you are referring to here. Do you have any examples of this?
Starviolet and DH are doing the ole playing dumb thing. Starviolet is especially one to play that game. DH is just being herself here on Dalrocks blog.
Using their “logic” at any time a man can just gather his kids up and order his wife out. And as for a woman only being a pussy hole and a uterus, well look at you two, based on the nasty comments I would hate to be married to either one of you. And based purely on your responses to conversation and this article you two are unworthy wifes and all you have to offer is a pussy hole and uterus. And you two know it and are damn proud of it.
All you big time christian men out there Cane, Micheal etc. you fellas need game or the church needs to get out of the family business and leave that up to us men. Which one of you scripture trivia champions is ready to shame some guy into marrying Starviolet. Which one is ready to lead a prayer for DH husband to elevate himself to a level of approval that will bring on a tingle to allow him to eat her pussy.
Dalrock wrote:
Oh yes, yes, I totally agree with this, and I meant to mention it in my comment but got distracted. It isn’t even possible to live a righteous life to please one’s wife because the moment he starts supplicating to her, her list of requirements will multiply exponentially. Husbands and wives should both be seeking to obey and please God above all else, and independent of what each other chooses to do.
This is actually a huge problem in Christianity, especially for new converts. Not to personalize, but my husband and I didn’t have a problem before becoming Christians with him supplicating to me (we had other problems), but after we became Christians, I appointed myself the judge of his spiritual fervor and moral failings, and he let me do so because he thought I was more spiritually mature. For any couple no longer wishing to have a sex life, I can recommend this approach; I was nicely on my way to becoming a frigid bitch.
After some time, and searching Scripture, he surmised that I was not more spiritually mature and that even if I was, I didn’t get to be the judge, jury, and executioner. I do wish influential Christians such as Mohler and others would be more careful to preach only what is Biblical; they do great damage to new converts such as we were.
@greyghost.
Completely agree.
DHtries to poison the argument about sex within marriage (or witholding it from her man) by saying Traditionalists look at it as prostitution.
She likes to avoid that sex is a requirement of marriage, just see how successful one is without it.
I think it is reasonable for men to have the option to walk away with everything that is (or was) their own so that they can then better fulfill their sexual needs in the event the wife invokes the sexual monopoly power play.
Why do women find that so offensive? If their man suddenly got fat and lazy, wouldn’t they want the same right to walk away to find a better prospect? What could be more fair.
Oh wait, it’s not about fair. It’s about a secure environment for the woman to fulfill her needs but neglect her husband’s needs. Once marriage hits, she has the power of the State behind her to enforce her will.
This is why marriage was never about religion, but about the State. I have no idea why we as a society have decided to mix a religious union (Marriage) with a State contract. We refer to them as if they are the same thing, but they are not even close.
SSM, how did the swap go?
Danger,
I never said that you claim that sex-for-security is ALL there is to marriage. I said you claimed that it is INEVITABLY so. That’s categorically untrue. There are plenty of women who, you know, WANT to have sex with their husbands. It’s not a trade. And, while still a minority, there are plenty of women who outearn their husbands, and therefore don’t have any reason to trade sex for goodies.
But even in a marriage with a traditional division of labor, sex should not be viewed as a quid pro quo. The quid pro quo is housework-and-child-care-for-financial-support. Sex is a mutual thing — or at least it is if you want it to be satisfying. If a man treats his wife like she owes him, then it is little surprise if his sex life is unsatisfying.
You say that men have a higher sex drive than women, and that may well be true on average. But it’s not always true in every marriage, and that doesn’t mean women have NO sex drive. The ideal ]shoudl be for a couple to meet half-way.
@ DH
I am only speaking to and about Christians I suppose. For Christians, we believe that the husband and wife become one flesh. We believe that husbands and wives have the right to expect sexual access to one another on a regular basis. We don’t believe women have the right to refuse for no good reason; if she does, she is in sin. Of course, a man won’t likely force himself on her, but I don’t think it would necessarily be wrong for him to do so; it’s just that he would rather persuade her to leave her sinful way.
Wow, I didn’t know that modern Christian leaders were taking it that far. Essentially, this is nothing short of female leadership. Maybe a different dispensation, they’ll argue in favor of?
@ FH
My husband put the kibosh on our end of it when our eldest daughter noticed what was going on and tried to go through me to defy him. I’ll be putting the write-up on my blog later this evening.
@ koevoet:
“Men are like trucks: they drive straighter with a weighted load.”
“Is he saying we should date fat chicks? Who should I believe? This Driscoll fellow or Roosh?”
I lulz’ed.
King Matt
Finally a post from you i can wholeheartedly agree with. It is as an unwritten rule in the majority of the testostosphere to decry and or berate traditional conservatives. This is so heartily embraced that, when i began, my screen name was “conservativation”, which i had carried for years. Here (not blaming Dalrock, Im just being specific) I started posting and was pummeled by a certain *legendary* testostosphere pontificating curmudgeon who fancies himself (and others fancy him as well) as one with moxy and heft. No listing of one’s core beliefs in the simplest of terms was even enough to shift the topic off of me and my evil trad con-ism. Only after a day of wrangling and a name change did the topic return to the topic.
I am not one who subscribes to the rather popular (but self perceived unique) positions about politics for example that all parties are the same and everyone is just a version of the other and that there are no real conservatives or traditionalists or whatever we want to call them, this sort of nuanced projection people seem to like so much that look there below in yonder valley at all those pedestrians while we very few can actually sit up here……different…..and see that they are all tilting at windmills down there.
Note: I am accusing no one specifically of anything here so much as making a very general observation.
I agree Matt that it is US who devalue the term(s) by these accusations, and we diminish the many who actually hold those beliefs and are not thus corrupted in either gender politics or fiscal or whatever, and all the debating terms and definitions is a created drama.
Danger,
I absolutely believe that sex is a moral requirement of marriage. I believe I said that above. Both husband and wives owe each other sexual contact.
I also don’t have a problem with the general notion that ONGOING withholding of sex can be categorized as “abandonment” for the purpsoes of assigning fault in a divorce. Obviously, the devil will be in some of the details, such as how one defines “ongoing” or what happens if one spouse has unorthodox sexual desires.
I just don’t think sex should be treated as quid pro quo. I think that will wreck the sex for both parties involved.
after we became Christians, I appointed myself the judge of his spiritual fervor and moral failings, and he let me do so because he thought I was more spiritually mature. For any couple no longer wishing to have a sex life, I can recommend this approach; I was nicely on my way to becoming a frigid bitch.
————————————————————–
You just described salvation by Personal Jesus (TM) brilliantly, thankfully you found the real one.
Most women divorce to punish their husbands. They usually don’t realize how much it hurts their bottom line until it’s done. Nothing pisses off a women as much as her ex-husband doing well and worse getting a new hotter wife or GF.
SSM,
No, I get the one flesh concept, and I thnk it’s lovely when couples make a habit of saying “yes,” to each other. And YES, I would certainly expect that the vast, vast majority of husbands would not force themselves on their wives.
But some men would and do. And they should be prosecuted under the criminal laws of this country, which are secular, not Christian.
I finished the swap on my end and sent Mary my write-up!
Yes lets talk about rape and abuse. Its THE lens through which we process these topics, er, isnt it?
We can start with the Sunday Morning Night Club, and the cheering-on it gets from too many who call themselves Christians. There is the idea that men availing themselves of sluts is not only to be expected, but is in itself good–“doing the Lord’s work”. Even the Bible calls them evils spirits, and God is not pleased to destroy the world in flood, or Sodom with fire.
There is much of what I can only interpret as glee in the idea of cat ladies and grass widows. Aside from the current uncharitable nature (that is antithetical to the God of love who wrote 1 Corinthians 13), there will be the future logistical problem of how to feed and house these poor creatures when they can’t work and the so-called social “safety-net” have–necessarily–contracted.
The vengeful spirit against brutal and feral women cannot help the men who have been so very badly damaged by the Moehler’s and Driscoll’s of the world either. The anger is just, and a cure is needed, but it is not spite. There should be more consideration on the idea that spite is considered a female foible.
I disagree with Matt King on making common cause with Driscolls and Moehlers, and other Balaams in the world. They will not see their error. God could reveal an angel with a flaming sword to them, that any ass could see, and they’ll still eventually lead the church into great sin.
I disagree with you.
We must love God, but we must also fear (respect) Him.
Women might love their husbands, but they have no fear of (respect for) them. The law neuters mens’ ability to maintain order in their own households. Preferably a man keeps order by inspiring love and obedience; if this does not work, I see no reason why he should not be able to use coercion just to the point of regaining control of the situation and his wife’s respect.
Empath,
I do think that rape is irrelevant here. FH brought it up at 9:16 a.m.
To say that sex isn’t an important component in marriage is merely being daft. Everything we do is driven by a need and sex is no different. Marriage is the sanctified outlet for sexual desires for Christians. It’s through marriage that the damaging effects of sexual desires are contained and instead focused towards family and children.
DH has no concept of why restriction is necessary. To her, the only necessary aspect of our existence is to be autonomous beings, following our intense desires to the letter and being answerable to the State only. The State is God. As long as our immediate self is gratified, there are no other worries. No need to worry about the future; just print more money, no need to worry about broken families or the death of the family; some technology will be invented and fix that or the State can just print more money. It’s an endless loop of government intervention. How can humans call themselves adults today when the State has to constantly ‘bail’ them out or provide free stuff? The genre of entitlement for this generation borders on insanity, if it has not already crossed that threshold. For DH, there is nothing else to live for, nothing greater than her needs and desires. Her career, if she really has one, is the be all and end all. She doesn’t care about family, she doesn’t care about tradition and she certainly doesn’t care for her husband. What does DH’s ‘Liberation’ really mean anyway? Doesn’t sound like real freedom to me. To me it seems that ‘liberation’ is just another word for ‘tyranny’, tyranny of the eternally ‘oppressed’ masses, via the State and its handlers.
Which leads me to this. What purpose do we have if we merely live for the now, fulfilling our every want and need via carnal satisfaction? We don’t grow, we don’t learn to appreciate the world for how it really works. We don’t use our God given gift, you know the brain, to understand what exactly life is about. It’s like an actress playing a role, she’s merely pretending to be something she isn’t, it ain’t real. It’s playing a part, one that in the end cannot fulfill her anyway.
I disagree with Matt King on making common cause with Driscolls and Moehlers, and other Balaams in the world. They will not see their error. God could reveal an angel with a flaming sword to them, that any ass could see, and they’ll still eventually lead the church into great sin.
—————————————————————
Cane
I think you misunderstood him….of course it may be me misunderstanding him. But also, if you read the rest of your post, then you read these comments you make here, there is a lack of congruence by my perception, and again, I could be wrong
Danger
Very interesting your comment. I saw in your comment a man that in frustration religion should not be a part of marriage and it should just be the state. Not direct quote but my understanding. That is not christianity it is pussy worship of churchianity That is a religion that marriage was never about.
Now DH you are right sex in marriage is not a quid pro quo it is a duty to honor as part of the vow of marriage. A wedding is done for the marriage not for the tingle of the guy or girl you are marry. Your faith in the marriage and the word of god is the motivation and purpose. And then with out looking and know god provides the damn tingles. Sunshinemary just discribed it in action with her comment in bold print to Dalrock.
@Red
“Nothing pisses off a women as much as her ex-husband doing well and worse getting a new hotter wife or GF.”
Money is not even necessary to get a fine woman. CL is years younger than my ex. I am not trading up since I did not file for or seek a divorce, but still a decent divorced man can often do much better than the woman that divorced him by claiming he is a worthless man. I don’t care about pissing of my ex, but a younger (hotter) pleasant woman suits me fine!
Eh DH, I brought up the issue of a ‘liberated wife’ and a ‘traditional wife’ both using ‘sex’ as a means to punish men. I did not actually bring up rape, I brought the example of ‘marital rape’ being used by liberal women to punish men who marry.
No DH, not exactly. Yes he floated the notion, but he didn’t -bring it up-. You took the notion and ran with it using it as that to which you juxtaposed the rest of the comments by him and others, because it plays well, it generates autonomous empathy, a less satisfying empathy experience, but better’n nuthin
I’m speaking particularly of pastors, priests, etc. It may be that Moehler or Driscoll can be reformed as laity, but not as leaders. There is a difference between being a corrupt attendee, and officiating the services and ceremonies. Balaam’s sin was so pernicious because of his status as a respected prophet of God.
Matthew King, I’m not Dalrock, but I’ve been through this argument before. The No True Scotsman fallacy is entertaining, once, and then grows tedious. IF a group of people call themselves “conservative”, then I will use that word to refer to them. If a group of people call themselves “traditionalists”, then likewise. Those who call themselves “traditional conservatives” hold a variety of views, and they can be found in many corners of the web, but an awful lot of them are neo-Victorians who put women on pedestals, just as Dalrock mentioned in the OP.
I find that many “traditionalist” “conservatives” are expressing political and social positions that were probably moderate liberalism 35 years ago. Many a man prior to 1970 or so was proud of the fact that after he married, his wife quit her day job that paid money and never had to work for money every again, not a single day. Such a man would regard those “traditional” “conservatives” who insist that women should go to college, then work to establish a career, then look for a husband as fools and radicals. The reality is that many, if not most, “traditional” “conservative” people today are exactly what Dalrock says, they are dragging masses. They aren’t taking any kind of real stand, they are just reacting to other people’s positions.
Rather than split hairs endlessly in search of the True Conservative, I prefer to take people’s self labeling at their word and proceed onward. Some TradCons don’t like this, because they would rather harangue the rest of us about how Not True TradCon other TradCons are. I’ve seen this game played by feminists – the radfems are not True Feminists to the equity feminists who are not True Feminists to the gender feminists who are not True Feminists to the 3rd Wave, etc.
All such a debate does is degrade any useful discussion to zero, and substitute sterile definitional arguments for something real. Such a tactic is useful if one’s goal is to effectively end any real debate…
[D: Well put.]
Oh man, just when I thought we were scooting along the dry beneath the muck, the muck of the muck, I open my email and get the little weekly newsletter from Dennis and Barbara Rainy.
This stuff makes me sick. Here is this woman claiming that the best gift her husband ever gave her was to tell her he will love her forever even if she never makes love with him again (and as you can see she was not talking about the goofy automobile accident scenario…..
———————————————————————
“”I knew he wanted to make love and he needed me, but I just couldn’t respond in that moment.
I felt guilty—I hated myself for being so complicated. Dennis was frustrated over his inability to love me enough to make me forget my fears.
Finally the tension became too much, and Dennis grabbed a bottle of hand lotion on the side of the bed and threw it across the room. Instead of hitting the wall, the bottle broke a small pane of glass in the window!
The room became very still. I began to cry. I loved my husband and didn’t want to hurt him.
Then Dennis said something that I never expected to hear. Something that became a milestone in our marriage. He tenderly cupped my face in his hands and said from his heart, “Barbara, I want you to know that I love you, and I am committed to you. I will love you for the rest of your life, even if we never, ever make love again.”
Then he kissed me on the forehead and gathered me into a warm embrace with no strings attached, and we eventually fell asleep in each other’s arms. No gift of any price could have meant more.
That evening in Mazatlan was a make-it-or-break-it moment in our marriage. We learned that sacrifice is the language of romance, and selfishness is the language of isolation and rejection. Commitment inspires one to sacrifice, and sacrifice makes commitment a rare jewel to be cherished.
PS. My husband’s sincere proclamation of love made me want to be with him physically more than ever the next day!
————————————————————
LOOKEE……he EARNED her sex the very next day.
He got scratched behind the ears, a biscuit, and she wanted him!
This is seriously jacked up to celebrate this. The reason it is celebrated is very simple. The narrative spread around by the men in this post, and the Rainey’s and such is the ALL men want is sex. Never mind if that’s true or not….its the starting point of measuring any situation.
Hence, he is essentially shit tested to prove that he sees her heart and its NOT her sex that he wants, he wants her (sniff).
@Harlot
“I absolutely believe that sex is a moral requirement of marriage. I believe I said that above. Both husband and wives owe each other sexual contact.
I also don’t have a problem with the general notion that ONGOING withholding of sex can be categorized as “abandonment” for the purpsoes of assigning fault in a divorce. Obviously, the devil will be in some of the details, such as how one defines “ongoing” or what happens if one spouse has unorthodox sexual desires.
I just don’t think sex should be treated as quid pro quo. I think that will wreck the sex for both parties involved.
”
You believe sex is a moral requirement, but you say that a woman should not be required to have sex with her husband. The state sanctions this argument as well with the agreement that rape can occur within a marriage.
Sex/security does not have to be treated directly as quid pro quo for the marriage contract to be validated (or not) by both parties though. If one party can abandon part of their contract “sometimes”, where-as the other party must still pay forth half of his assets and income, then is it really a contract?
Why then, can a man not “sometimes” abandon part of his contract by no longer subsidizing his wife’s desires via his labor?
AR
His was not the No True Scotsman assertion at all. He was stating none of the things you saw, he was not trying to debate definitions and the like. I cannot see how you got that. Are you serious? Pages of definitional debates rage here all the time. I agree it is tedious and a waste of time.
Tell us, what IS the pure date of mores to aspire to to be conservative and traditional? The answer is irrelevant, but you did raise the question, or beg it anyway.
No, no Empath. That’s a total mischaracterization. I said in my immediate follow-up comment tha the issue of marital rape is irrelevant, i.e. I said: “That has nothing to do with using sex as a reward-and-punishment tool.”
Others kept raising the issue and I responded. I will say that it’s pretty hard to let pass the notion that marital rape should not be recognized as a crime.
It’s pretty hard to let pass the notion that divorce theft, via alimony and child support, should not be recognised as a crime.
Just to clear up what I wrote earlier, which wasn’t complete I don’t think: not all women get a lot of money from divorce, of course. A lot do, and really sock it to their unfortunate husbands, but a lot don’t for whatever reason. Many of the poorest people in this country are single mothers who left their husband and took their kids with her but is now finding her new life isn’t quite as glamorous as she’d been led to believe it would be.
Do many women divorce expecting a big payday? I think that’s a reasonable assumption, just as it’s reasonable to think that a lot of men aren’t getting married because they don’t want to be wiped out by a divorce settlement.
Because, Danger, Sex is not a quid pro quo for joint ownership of marital assets. It’s a moral obligation because that’s what makes the marriage stronger but it’s not a quid pro quo.
The contract you enter into in marriage is for joint ownership of whatever you each bring in during the marriage. So if your wife earns a nice fat paycheck, or inherits a house, or wins Megabucks, half of that belongs to you because that’s the deal you struck.
Now, it may be that you feel ill-used because you are hustling to bring in most of the income. But in most such cases, the quid pro quo you’ve probably struck is that she will be the primary caretaker of the house and the kids. And if you don’t like it (and I know this sounds snarky and I don’t mean it that way), maybe you should have struck a bargain that is more congenial to you, such as marrying someone who pulls more weight in terms of income generation.
Say you have a wife and husband. The wife is no longer attracted to her beta husband. He thus gets no sex at all. She wants divorce and he doesn’t. Therefore, if he files for neglect or abandonment or ‘alienation’, she gets what she wants and he gets stuck with divorce court that he doesn’t actually want. In other words, he actually wants to maintain his vows. However, what if he tries something different, what if he tries to get her sexually aroused? He goes to the gym, gets a haircut, gets better groomed and takes her out to a romantic dinner. Then they return home and he tries to be more dominant, to take control of the situation. If they have sex, she can either at the end say it was rape and that he forced her, or not. Depending on how she feels. The point though, is that any married man will probably not be able to save his marriage by being more dominant and taking control for fear of the law and his wife’s retribution. Therefore, by having laws like ‘marital rape’, the only avenue a man has to get sex with his wife, is to do everything she says, and then she can still decline and there is fuck all he can do about it, except divorce her. All domestic laws that interfere with marriage are relevant and can be used as a tool to punish.
These types of laws have firmly placed a woman in the driving seat of marriage, with little recourse for a man. Marriage 2.0 is slavery.
England has been a Christian country for, I suppose, over fifteen hundred years. The laws of marriage either are Christian or reflect Christian thinking, especially Paul who has a lot – and in my view – very sensible things to say about it – all that burning in the flesh.
It is equally the case as Lord Justice Blackstone wrote in the eighteenth century in his Commentaries on the Laws of England that proof of Rape is very hard to achieve – and that proof must as always be beyond a shadow of a doubt.
What never occured to Paul (I say) or Blackstone was that one could Rape ones wife, indeed I am prepared to go out on a limb and suggest that as long as they have been teaching Criminal law in England every first year law student was taught that Rape of ones spouse was impossible, and as such the concept of Marital Rape made as much sense as the concept of a being a Married Bachelor. Certainly that was what I was taught when I was a first year law student, and I was led to believe that that had always been the law (as I am sure it was).
In their infinite wisdom the learned Justices in the Court of Appeal decided sometime in the late eighties or early nineties that not only had that never been the law and that one could indeed Rape ones wife – thus it was not long (I speak from experience) that Feminist Lesbian Counsel and their Mangina Police Officers were enthusiastically prosecuting (on absolutely no evidence men for just that). Sex is no big deal – and frankly given England’s generous divorce laws surely the sensible thing is to Divorce in the PDA (as was) rather than waste state money in prosecuting a hapless Beta.
As I said to a married friend of mine only last week in the Pub – himself a victim when single of a threatened false-rape accustaion – the only way that a man can now be certain of avoiding a charge of Rape is to limit ones sexual activity to Prostitutes – for that is the inevitable consequence of such Judicial Misandry.
@TFH
Cheering on may be too strong a metaphor–let’s call it golf-clapping.
Shielding the beta males? Come on, man! That there are sluts is true, and that they choose this themselves is also true (i.e., no PUA trickery; can’t con an honest [wo]man, etc.), but “shielding” them? Give me a break. That’s like saying dealers shield addicts from abusing prescription drugs. No: they shouldn’t be raiding our medicine cabinets for a high, but the solution is not to bring in dealers. What we want are slut-proof cabinets, and more ready discernment of sluts, to weed them out.
We used to send them to convents. That seems wise.
Church isn’t for everyone; just as hospitals are not. If a hospital (church) gets a hint that a person is there to abuse drugs (sluts)–illicit or prescription (PUA or beta)–then the hospital kicks them out for the good of everyone trying to heal, or be healed.
A doctor caught dealing should certainly be fired.
@Opus
Certainly that was what I was taught when I was a first year law student, and I was led to believe that that had always been the law (as I am sure it was).
I was taught the same thing about US law I was in law school in the late 1970s/early 1980s.
Spousal rape is difficult for the same reasons that any non-violent rape is – there is no proof, only ‘he said / she said’. The state taking ‘she said’ as the default proof is denying the man not only the right of being considered innocent until proven guilty it is also putting the burden of proof on the defendant – both of these contradict core concepts of American jurisprudence. I believe that rape should be a capital offense (specifically of the executable variety) because it can really only be proven if the woman has taken noticeable physical injuries and reports it in a timely manner, then they must prove that the potential rapist is the one who perpetrated the act. Also, credible witnesses would help to prove it, though it would beg the question as to why these witnesses didn’t shoot the perp or perps on the spot (in my state this is legal). Basically, the woman is going to go through a lot of pain and agony to get justice in this type of system. In this case, the only possible punishment that I can see as fitting the crime is death.
If there are no physical injuries or credible witnesses then all you really can prove is fornication, in which case either both parties or neither should be punished. Marital rape is even harder to prove without injuries and a timely filed complaint because it is the only relationship where sexual conduct between the two people should be *expected*.
When Gilder said that women civilize men, because men would roam around subsisting and hitting each other with sticks if women weren’t in the picture, it made sense. Take away women and civilization, and we *do* like fighting and killing things and seeing what’s over the next hill — the nomad lifestyle. Thanks to welfare and feminism, we have a whole class of urban nomads today who do nothing but drink, play video games, and commit minor crimes, because they’re able to live off their girlfriends’ food stamps and public housing.
But those men prove that it’s not women themselves who civilize men and spur them to hard work and innovation; it’s the opportunity to have and raise a family that does it. Take away the women, and men wouldn’t have the incentive to create cities and vacuum cleaners and cathedrals. But add in the women without a decent marriage contract and a few other things like private property rights, and men aren’t very civilized then either. Men civilize themselves — not to get laid, but to have a place to raise their families.
I am having a hard time disagreeing with anything DH said at 3:35. Do I loose my man-card?
FH, I think you raise a good point that everything really hangs on how the woman feels. Even in my own marriage, where we strive to follow a Biblical model, at any point I could change my mind (though I won’t) and there would be nothing my husband could do about it. Here is what he doesn’t have:
1. church-backed authority to pressure me to follow a Biblical marriage standard with regard to roles, responsibilities, and rights
2. legal right via the courts to force me to uphold the bargain I agreed to (staying married, for one)
3. legal right to coerce me to provide sexual access if I refuse and will not submit via any other means (i.e. seduction, flirtation, etc)
4. legal right to physically coerce a wayward wife to obedience if all other means of inspiring obedience fail
So, even in Biblical Christian marriages, women really only hand over the reigns of power because they choose to, not because they have to. It’s a precarious deal for men and is the best reason I can think of for Christian men to learn Game; he has no legal right to force her to uphold her end of the bargain, so he needs to be prepared to manipulate her into doing so if necessary. Given that the Bible tells us that women *will* seek to rule over their husbands, what else can men do but Game them? If the law stayed out of people’s marriages (no more ridiculously over-reaching domestic violence and marital rape laws), Game might not be necessary for the Christian man.
I agree too with DH 3:35. This is why women always look for a wealthier husband. This way they can’t lose. If women were forced to marry a poorer man, the marriage rate would be in the single digits.
imnobody, a man is fucked either way. If he doesn’t earn enough, he’s not good enough for marriage. If he earns enough, he’s good enough for marriage but also, lo and behold, good enough for divorce. It’s a death trap.
There are plenty of poor’ men around, the Atlantic article tells us this. And while telling us this, it also tells us that the women have no interest in marrying such ‘Peter Pan’ boys. Women have no use for men after all. Men best pack up their shit and go play elsewhere.
@FH
Agreed. This is what makes being a man so hard in this age. Being single is the solution, although I fear old age. I guess groups of men will eventually be formed to live together and care about each other, the way priests do. But it is too early in the matriarchy for that.
FH – You are right as well. MGTOW is pretty much the only guaranteed safe option. If a man ‘needs’ a woman’s ‘company’ then he needs to become a PUA.
As a side note, has anyone noticed that as feminism increases in the US, homosexuality does as well, and becomes more open? Methinks that femis supporting the homosexual movement are further screwing themselves [heh].
These types of laws have firmly placed a woman in the driving seat of marriage, with little recourse for a man. Marriage 2.0 is slavery.
Any woman commenting on love,marriage ,church and children knows this and is the basis of their comments. DH damn sure knows it.
imnobody, to be honest, I just fear the futility of it all. The idea of self-autonomy as the greatest overriding good, and how liberals are shaping the world in their disgusting image, leaves me in dread. Their world is pointless, it has no meaning outside achieving a ‘feel good’ sensation. Without something to live and die for, life is like an empty eggshell. Brittle and only good for disposing in the bin.
My mind rebels under this premise.
@Starviolet
I wonder if all of the bad boys who get women pregnant and pay next to nothing are pulling down those numbers. For guys that make any kind of money at all, the family courts are not kind.
@FH
Agreed. I couldn’t say it better with my broken English. Liberals (which are in power) are injecting their nihilistic philosophy through all society. So the outcome is a suicidal society, which doesn’t want to have children and it will be swept away by the winds of history.
Sunshinemary
You have got it. Your last comment has summed it up and is why I’m an MRA. My son will not live in that world if i can help it in any way. It is also the reason I don’t care for game in marriage in a way. If I have to use game on a wife I just assume tell the bitch to get lost. That also takes care of the marital rape thing too. (later bitch) The removal of the sword of Damocles will have thde effect of game anyway.
@imnobody
So the outcome is a suicidal society, which doesn’t want to have children and it will be swept away by the winds of history.
Amen, and Amen! This result could play itself out in Europe during many of our lifetimes. The US won’t be far behind.
Aaah, I’m nervous that Koevoet’s agreeing with me!
*scurries to check what I said at 3:35*
SSM,
Why would any woman want to get married if it means her husband has the legal right to force her to have sex against her will and physically coerce her to do what he wants? I like men plenty but I don’t like ’em that much.
The idea is balance DH, there has been no talk of ‘forceful sex’. If a wife is obligated, like her husband, to provide sex at reasonable intervals, there is no need for any force. This concept is too hard for you to swallow though, excuse the pun, so you should probably take your mouth full of of useless antics, dribbling from the sides and go kiss your husband.
Comon ride the train, RIDE IT!
Comon DH, hop on!
Mohler’s article is shockingly, maddeningly bad theology. It doesn’t matter now, but I’m glad my (now ex-) wife didn’t read this while we were married. She was already so self-persuaded that she was entitled to withhold sex that no one could budge her — not pastors, not counselors, not even the eventual ultimatum that if she persisted in her sexual refusal (coupled with her insistence that her income was “her” money while my income was “our” money), I would move out (not divorce) for six months as a wake-up call. Her response? I’m sure you guessed it: she filed an ambush divorce (for the second and final time; yeah, I know, I was a sap) shortly after our 29th anniversary; told our oldest kids three weeks before she told me, contrary to repeated promises after the first divorce filing that she wouldn’t do that again; and commenced scorched earth litigation because she was furious and her Christian attorney led her to believe she could take me for astronomical alimony and child support. After 15 months, two different attorneys for her, and tens of thousands of dollars for our respective attorneys (mine did a great job, but couldn’t avoid the expense), she ended up settling for exactly the same child support I had proposed to pay if I had gone through with the separation, plus a small amount of alimony for a short time. In the process, she completely alienated our youngest son, so that her expectation of at least 50% custody of him became moot. Not having had the benefit of this site and the discussion of hypergamy, I was later shocked to find out that she had begun dating online a week after the divorce was final, within three weeks had zeroed in on a guy who lives 400 miles away, met him in person 3 months later, and got engaged 3 months after that (having only spent time with him every other weekend and a couple holidays). Somehow, she blithely ignores the facts that his denomination’s theology would have been anathema to her a year ago, that he has already been divorced twice (the second time one year before our divorce was final), and that he had at least one confirmed incident of physical violence against his second wife (in anger, he flipped her off the cot she was sleeping on, causing some bruising, ostensibly because she “provoked” him in some unspecified way). Instead, she is infatuated with his external spirituality — he is a lay pastor and has aspirations of missions-related work. So, sometime soon apparently (still less than one year since our divorce was final), she will marry him, move 400 miles away from her 16-year old son, and take our special needs daughter 400 miles away from me. She justifies the divorce based on my “unfaithfulness” to her in the form of sporadic pornography use during the marriage (an issue that pre-existed the marriage, as I imagine is true for most guys, but that was definitely not helped by her years of sexual refusal).
While I am not aware of any Christian authority figure endorsing her sexual refusal during the marriage or telling her pre-divorce that she had biblical grounds (on the contrary, I’m aware of multiple pastors and counselors telling her the opposite), once she pulled the trigger on the divorce anyone and everyone who might have had any authority over or influence on her headed for the hills. I have requested multiple church leaders and former mentors and friends of hers to step in; some have ignored me, others have listened but then said that she would not listen to them at this point; no one has even tried to pull her back. And there are plenty of girlfriends out there who are happy to root for her new “happiness” and to gush over her sugary, Christian-sounding Facebook posts about her spiritual growth.
I have three boys, ages 22, 20, and 16. I think they’ll likely marry even later than most, having observed their parents’ relationship (though with only partial knowledge of the conflicts). But at some point, I’ll need to warn them that the Body of Christ cannot be counted on to instruct their wives correctly about a biblical marriage, nor to step in to assist them if their wives decide at some point to bail out, contrary to her public vows. It may not be possible to have that conversation without being negative about their mother (which is a big no-no), but the dangers to their futures are too great not to have that conversation.
Any woman who will not guarantee that she will provide sex to a husband at reasonable intervals should not marry. Period. Full stop.
Regular sex at reasonable intervals is the ONLY benefit a man gets from marriage. Everything else for a married man is burden and obligation — burdens and obligations the state can legally compel him to fulfill, even if she no longer lives with him.
So if a man can’t get an agreement from a woman for regular sex at reasonable intervals, there’s nothing in marriage for him.
And any man who cannot get a guarantee from his prospective wife that she will provide regular sex at reasonable intervals should not marry that woman.
And he should tell his wife: “If you begin to withhold sex unreasonably, if you refuse my sexual advances unreasonably and repeatedly, I will construe your conduct as marital abandonment. I will consider your conduct to be a deliberate and willful breach of your marital obligations to me and will proceed accordingly.”
Ah, she can make agreements all day long. Who will compel her to live up to them? If she says she isn’t going to put out, his present-day choices are:
1. divorce her, with all the horribleness that entails
2. Cheat on her, which will eventually loop back into #1
2. rape her, and hope the physical evidence is too weak to prosecute and that the prosecutor isn’t a bitter feminist
3. Game her, and try to manipulate her into giving it up.
And any woman, including me and every woman who comments here, has the power to force his hand into one of these four choices at her whim.
@farm boy
This is what a reader named Clarence explained in a previous thread:
As for the question of what incents divorce, this study looked at it and found that child custody was what drove it. Children are the most valuable asset of the marriage. The ability to steal it (and be paid to do so) is a strong incentive, no matter how much the frivorce apologists claim otherwise.
@deti
He could also choose to withhold his provisions as long as she withholds hers.
Typo in the numbers; it should read 1-4 of course.
For supposedly being a lawyer, DH sure has trouble with facts and logic. Not worth discussing with. Don’t feed the trolls
@deti
Does your hamsterlator work on this (written by a man):
What he is not talking about is no more clear than what he is talking about, whatever that is.
SSM:
Yep. I did this with my wife. Long story short, absent immediate improvements in my marriage following my Gaming her, and if it didn’t work, I was about to opt for divorce.
CL:
Also a good option. “Honey, you need to know: no sexytime, no money. You’ll need to find a way to provide for yourself.”
2. rape her, and hope the physical evidence is too weak to prosecute and that the prosecutor isn’t a bitter feminist
It seems as though a man is screwed (heh) either way, since she can cry rape over anything with no evidence, so barring any physical evidence aside from his semen inside her (and since they are married, well, big whoop, that’s where it’s meant to go), physically overpowering her and gently raping her could be an option that seems no more risky for him than breathing.
farm boy says:
August 27, 2012 at 5:28 pm
farm boy she is probably not even a legal aid let alone a lawyer and quite frankly I doubt her husband even exists, if he does I imagine he walks on four legs and shits in a sandy box.
I post on a gimmick account on the internet, maybe even one you have encountered before, we can smell our own kind.
7Man:
I ran it through the hamsterlator. That graf burned out a couple of fan belts on it. It will need some major modifications to figure out that gobbledygook.
As I wake up after taking the Red Pill, I am overwhelmed by one single question: Now what? I now see that marriage as defined in scripture and by millennia of civilizations is in the gutter. So what’s a single Christian guy to do? Chastity? Wild abandonment to unfettered Californication? Marriage to a princess?
It a fine mess, to be sure.
At least my eyes are open. Thank God for the little things.
“If you begin to withhold sex unreasonably, if you refuse my sexual advances unreasonably and repeatedly, I will construe your conduct as marital abandonment. I will consider your conduct to be a deliberate and willful breach of your marital obligations to me and will proceed accordingly.”
Wow. What woman could resist that kind of seduction? (Yes, I’m being sarcastic.)
Look, as I said above, I believe both sexes have an obligation to make things work in the bedroom. But it is an obligation that goes both ways. That means not just making your body available, gentlemen, but actually making an effort to be attractive. Throwing a bunch of legalese at your wife about what you unreasonable breaches of the marital contract is not exactly sexay.
@Deti
That works so long as you are married. Post divorce the courts can step in and decide how hard he should work. I’ve never been in this situation but I would be strongly tempted to pick up the habit of greeting her in public with a smirk and a gentle punch on the bicep:
It might not work, but it would be fun.
Miserman says:
August 27, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Buy a canon EOS 7d, a second-hand set of lenses, and take an add out in a local college newspaper for models looking to build their portfolio.
Exploit them.
Hahaha, CL, of course you and I go right to the “How’s about they beat and rape us?” suggestion. Oh dear… 😉
@sunshinemary
There is a fifth option: “have a woman who is more interested in sex than you”. All my gfs have been this way so this is a no-problem for me. Of course, I don’t live in America but in Latin America.
@deti
I don’t think the link worked: Fifty Shades of bleak: Looking for love everywhere it isn’t. CL is doing a good job befuddling them.
@DH
But it is an obligation that goes both ways. That means not just making your body available, gentlemen, but actually making an effort to be attractive.
Damn, you mean a man can’t just say, “Jump on and ride me”?
@imnobody
A girlfriend is not a wife. Girlfriends will swing naked from the chandeliers. You can leave a frigid girlfriend without spending much money to do so. Put a ring on one of your GFs’ fingers and it becomes she who can decide when, where, and how much.
@sunshinemary
Well, wives in the country I live are also very interested in sex (I know it from friends: I have lived here for 12 years so I know the field).
This is not to say that Latin American women are better than American women. They have other flaws that American women lack (but being frigid is not one of them). For example, they are more hypergamous and they automatically divorce when they have a couple of kids.
Western men who come here think they have come to the paradise and end up being divorced (although child support here is small and seeing your children is a no-problem – usually women complain because the father doesn’t want to see the kids). Other cultures, other customs.
This is why I am reluctant to put a ring on them (not because of sex, but because of other things).
@SSM
“Put a ring on one of your GFs’ fingers and it becomes she who can decide when, where, and how much.”
Unfortunately that is reality. It is not consistent with Christian (sacramental) marriage, but it is what churchians believe and what is taught in modern churches. Fr. Lukewarm says nothing to oppose this.
7man, Well, I’m pretty sure that prissy, self-righteous discussions of contractual obligations aren’t going to do the trick.
@DH,
I agree. My “prissy, self-righteous discussions” must be delivered with dominance and mixed with a good amount of Game.
@DH
Why would any man want to get married if it means his wife has the legal right to force him to spend his money against his will and physically coerce him to do what she wants? I like women plenty but I don’t like ‘em that much.
I’m glad to see everyone finally getting to the ugly elephant in the room. Dalrock once again a christian family man has lead a discussion that just plain lays out in full view the reason for MGTOW,the PUA, and the peter pan’s. The spearhead couldn’t have done a better job. You are a good man Dalrock
Now the conversation can go to action taken to correct this madness.
EMPATH
AR
His was not the No True Scotsman assertion at all.
Yeah, he was. He’s stating that he, and only he, King, A. Matthew King, is the True Traditional Conservative. So I suggest he go and joust with the Darwin Catholic for a while, and let us know who the winner is. Then he can go challenge Bonald, and all the rest of the hair-splitters. Etc. and Etc.
He was stating none of the things you saw, he was not trying to debate definitions and the like. I cannot see how you got that. Are you serious? Pages of definitional debates rage here all the time. I agree it is tedious and a waste of time.
He’s taking issue with Dalrock, and insisting that rather than take on the content of what Driscoll, Mohler, etc. are saying, we should instead attack their “traditional conservative” credentials. That would be a total waste of time. Driscoll could play AMOG all day against “you’re not a REAL conservative, you’re not a REAL traditionalist” and not break a sweat.
It’s not form, it is the content. It’s not the picture, it’s the object. It’s not the symbol, it’s the referent. It’s the pedestalizing, vagina-worshipping, feminized, yes-dear, doormat mindset that is hurting men, no matter what it’s called.
Tell us, what IS the pure date of mores to aspire to to be conservative and traditional?
1. I don’t know.
2. I don’t care.
3. Arguing about what is a True TradCon Scotsman is a waste of time.
4. Solving a problem is more useful than arguing about ambiguous, fuzzy definitions like “conservative”.
The answer is irrelevant, but you did raise the question, or beg it anyway.
The answer is irrelevant, but you have to ask the question anyway? Say, are you moonlighting as a neo-re-deconstructionist lecturer of post-modernist literature, at some Enormous State U?
greyghost says:
August 27, 2012 at 6:59 pm
“Now the conversation can go to action taken to correct this madness.”
Buy a lifetime supply of popcorn and learn to home brew. Enjoy the decline. We can’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again and I don’t want to.
DH – “Aaah, I’m nervous that Koevoet’s agreeing with me!
*scurries to check what I said at 3:35*”
You should be. We’re rubbing off on you [heh]. You’ll be SSM Mk. II before you know it.
Laugh of the day
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/27/convention-protest-update-giant-puppets-vagina-costumes-on-the-scene/
imnobody,
What is life like for an unmarried man in his 40s, 50s … 60s? Do you have never married single friends of such age groups? What is their take? I think a lot of men have a fear of the unknown. They don’t necessarily think marriage and family to be a good deal but they also don’t know what else exists and are fearful of losing out.
“Regular sex at reasonable intervals is the ONLY benefit a man gets from marriage. Everything else for a married man is burden and obligation …”
Great comment, deti, as usual. I only have one quibble. I’m not even sure sex is a benefit. Seems like it’s more effort than it’s worth.
Not a reply to anyone, just a random field report:
This Sunday our (Catholic) priest gave an amazingly un-sugarcoated sermon on Ephesians 5 (“Wives, be subject to your husbands”). Also, I am getting married soon to an awesome Catholic guy, and the book for our marriage class states that the husband is the head of the family and that spouses have a right to regular sex from each other. So far it’s all pretty no-nonsense, but our parish is more conservative than most, I’m afraid.
I’ve never gotten the whole Beauty and the Beast paradigm, aside from the erotic angle. Morally it makes at least a little sense (men commit more violent crimes), but for Christians…. don’t they remember that Eve fell first? We’re all a bunch of sinners, men and women.
Joshua,
You ask why should men get married if their wives can legally force them to, as you put it, spend money, i.e. split the marital estate upon divorce and provide support in certain circumstances?
I certainly would not imply that any man should get married, so you may be asking the wrong person. It’s a cost benefit/ risk reward analysis. Marriage (I find) is worthwhile despite the risks to my pocketbook if my husband walks because it means being part of a team to to manage our lives together. It means that you have a partner to manage your household, your kids, and your finances so you’re not doing everything on your own. It’s also a huge benefit to have someone take care of your house and kids while you concentrate on your career, if thats the arrangement you have, but that also means more of a risk that you’ll end up paying big bucks if she walks. The more independent and career minded she is, the more you’ll have to do house and kid duty, but the less likely you’ll end up,paying support in the event of divorce. But staying single or shacking up are fine options too, though you are less likely to wind up with a homemaker that way if that is what you are seeking.
Playing dumb.
Cheering on may be too strong a metaphor–let’s call it golf-clapping.
Shielding the beta males? Come on, man! That there are sluts is true, and that they choose this themselves is also true (i.e., no PUA trickery; can’t con an honest [wo]man, etc.), but “shielding” them? Give me a break. That’s like saying dealers shield addicts from abusing prescription drugs. No: they shouldn’t be raiding our medicine cabinets for a high, but the solution is not to bring in dealers. What we want are slut-proof cabinets, and more ready discernment of sluts, to weed them out.
Cane that looks like a man playing dumb if there ever was. i hope you don’t actually have a leadership position in a church some where. If your comments and responses to comments made are any indication you have a church that not only harbours sluts, but worship them as virtuous for being in church. The PUA that have come to your church to wear the pussies out (and assholes for the serious phreaks) of your worshipped sluts are doing the lords work occupying them hoes from the beta christian men you churchian are serving up to slaughter. Only a pussy worshipping churchian would even by mistake think TFH was even talking about a PUA shielding a slut,,,like from what, his own semen shooting into her mouth?
Gilligan has one one up these chuchian types, Gilligan was at leaste trying to help. But these guys have proudly buried their heads in the sand mouthed off some shit out of the bible and arrogantly refuse to get their hands dirty in the name of godliness.
@Greyghost
TFH asserted PUAs were shielding the betas from the sluts. I was arguing that this is not the case. Neither of us spoke of shielding sluts. The rest of your argumentative error falls from that one.
I have to operate in the light of Romans 3, and strive to not fall afoul of verse 8, in particular. You may not have such restraints.
@RTP
“. I’m about 2/3rds through a book for fathers in my situation to help them build themselves and raise godly, masculine boys. ”
Care to share the name of the book?
CL, SunshineMary only (I am not discussing these issues here with any other women),
CL, that was a good point about why not just rape her, because she can charge you with rape after ordinary sex (not forcible) anyway. This is the inevitable result of illogical laws. It is the reason I suppose why the punishment for rape is less than that for murder, because otherwise a man might as well murder the woman he has raped. There is no risk of greater punishment. By the same logic, if a husband can be charged with rape after normal marital sex, there is no greater risk for him if he does rape her (unless he leaves bruises I suppose).
The problem with CL’s concept of “gentle rape” is that no man would really want to live with a woman he had raped. A man can’t do “gentle rape” and want or expect a relationship with the woman afterwards. At least, I can’t imagine it.
I am curious too about what SunshineMary means by reasonable physical coercion. Perhaps we should take this to her blog, but I am genuinely curious what this would cover.
@King A
How is standing athwart history yelling “Stop!” any different than a drift sock?
I’ll consider using a better term than traditional conservative as soon as someone proposes one*. I started off using Social Conservative, but switched to Trad Con fairly shortly thereafter. The term itself isn’t redundant though. There are different types of conservatives. I’m referring to those who want to conserve traditional values and culture. I’m not referring to economic or fiscal conservatives.
*My only requirements are that the term be generally understood so that the Trad Cons in question know I’m referring to them and readers generally understand who I’m talking about. Those Trad Cons who aren’t like that can help me out by ceasing to provide cover to the ones who are like that. At the very least, stop being more troubled that I’m calling them out than you are that they are that way in the first place.
flirtyintrovert, that is good news. There used to be a booklet sent to people interested in becoming Catholics here in Australia, maybe thirty years ago. Somehow I acquired a copy, despite being a “cradle Catholic”. That booklet stated that the husband is the head of the family, and explained that all communities need a head.
I expect the Church will speak more clearly on this in future, perhaps as the results of not doing so become more and more evident in social damage.
The Traditionalist (Latin Mass) priests are usually good on male headship. I suppose they know that this has been the traditional teaching over the centuries.
PUA are shielding betas from the sluts. As long as the carousel rider has a seat(or dick) on the carousel she will not be deceiving a game less beta chump into marrying her. That is how it is. Teach those boys the truth or introduce your betas to the manosphere. Sooner or later the PUA will drop that used up slut and your boys won’t be able to handle it. One more thing your boys learn some game or just plain have an understanding of female nature and family law they may be able to forgo the sluts and peel off a 17 to 19 year old daughter of a churchian member before she gets on the carousel.
BTW DH I agreed with you too at 305
@sunshinemary wrote.
“…but after we became Christians, I appointed myself the judge of his spiritual fervor and moral failings, and he let me do so because he thought I was more spiritually mature. For any couple no longer wishing to have a sex life, I can recommend this approach; I was nicely on my way to becoming a frigid bitch.”
Wow. Mirror image of my marriage. Only she wasn’t nicely on her way. Train pulled into the station and she was at the espresso bar. Somehow we got into churchian relationships that seemed to exalt the feminine and undercut the masculine, that is except the masculine that the women defined as good. Reading the story at the link about women being more ethical (or also, “spiritual”) than men, I really saw how this played out in our couple’s counseling. She knew just how too talk and come out on top, leaving me to be the poor wretch to try and make her feel loved.
I am glad a woman such as yourself is blogging about this kind of stuff.
@DC
If you want you could discuss it on my Boundaries in Marriage post.
One more thing Cane your boys aren’t addicts they are betas the baddest dudes america’s got. We have a duty to protect and honor them. The constitution written out of genesis in the bible was written to do just that. Worked pretty well until we started worshipping women.
@Nas
What is life like for an unmarried man in his 40s, 50s … 60s?
Well, about the life for an unmarried man in his 40s, it is my life. I’m in my early 40s. Mostly devoted to work. With LTRs (serial monogamy), but nothing seems to stick.
Do you have never married single friends of such age groups?
In the country I was born and in the country I live, I don’t know anybody with these characteristics that is not gay. There are divorced people, sure, but they have their kids.
What is their take? I think a lot of men have a fear of the unknown.
I have. 2011 was an annus horribilis for me. I have two surgeries in the back. Since then, I have pain. I have a fear of being alone in my old age.
They don’t necessarily think marriage and family to be a good deal but they also don’t know what else exists and are fearful of losing out.
That’s me! The thing is that there is no other thing. If you want companionship in middle age, you have to get married. Modern society does not give you any alternatives. I am lucky, though, I have two sisters and a big extended family, so, when I feel really alone, I’ll move close to them.
OK, CL, I shall repeat my comment at your blog. The physical coercion thing came up at a couple of other blogs too, and I can provide citations. I would be interested in comments from women I can trust not to become hysterical.
coffecrazed – I advise against marital counseling, even with Christian counselors, if you can avoid it. We tried it; it was useless and only served to turn me into more of a controlling shrew because I’m pretty good at running verbal circles around people. The counselor became just one more person for me to manipulate, and I had a storehouse full of sympathy-getting ploys including but not limited to the good old verbal abuse accusation. Of course, my husband’s response of, “I’m not verbally abusive! She really is a bitch” didn’t go over well with the therapist.
DC – let us discuss coercion elsewhere. CL’s blog is good. I am trying not to say inflammatory things on blogs where I have no chance of getting a delete if I have poster’s regret five minutes later. We can also discuss it on my last post,
Sunday Supplications: I see rapists everywhere, Church edition if anyone wishes.
Farm Boy, that must be Code Pink.
I can think of negs to use on them all day…
Never allow a marriage therapist into your marriage. It is a terrible mistake for a husband to make. I would never allow this.
@Anonymous Reader
One of them has a sign demanding respect. I wonder if she is being meta-ironic…
@sunshinemary, @david collard,
Hear you…especially christian counselors in my books. quintessential white knights (i think is the right term?).
CoffeeCrazed, I am not a particularly aggressive man at all, but there is one thing that unfailingly infuriates me, and that is people interfering in my family without permission. The mistake that a man makes in allowing any kind of “marriage counsellor” into his marriage, and the reason why I would never do this, is that it is giving another person authority in your household that they have no right to. I might allow a parish priest to intervene to some limited extent. For example, the parish priest and I had a disagreement, at arms’s length, about whether my daughter should be allowed to be an altar girl. I had no problem with his expressing an opinion, although my decision (that she should not serve at the altar) stood.
The idea that I would allow some man, or worse, woman to purport to tell me how to relate to my wife is ridiculous.
@starviolet
Statistics are your friend as well as your enemy.
1-2 years ago, there was a publicized study that claimed that the average African-American woman held a net worth of $5. Immediately, black women jumped onto the internet with posts like, “I’m an engineer and I earn six figures. How *dare* the government claim that black women are poor!”/”I’m a subway conductor/manager and I earn $68K a year! Why is the government claiming that all black women are poor!?”/”I’m a part-time scripper *and* I do hair! I’m worth a *lot* more than $5, trust me!”
When confronted with the entire study (noting that married, non-working black women were tabulated with a personal net worth of $0, and that the cost of living for public assistance- dependent black women was subtracted from the total earnings of black women prior to finding the average), they calmed down. Interestingly enough, the amount of black women who began to (publicly) rail against welfare rose as well.
Now, as partially mentioned by Clarence (on the other thread), the averages for CS payments are tabulated in the same manner as the average net worth of black women.
Here’s the deal. By military standards (re: post-divorce maintenance, AKA cash and prizes), the dependant spouse can receive up to 25% of the providing spouse’s pre-tax income in Child Support and up to 19% of the provider’s pre-tax income in alimony. This means that a military member (if acting as the sole provider) can receive less than 35% of their actual pay per month.
Eg. Sgt Snuffy earns $1000/check. After 20% ($200) removed in taxes, Sgt Snuffy pays out another $190 for alimony and $250 per check in child support. Sgt Snuffy receives a check for $360 every two weeks, more or less. If it wasn’t for the housing and food allowance, Sgt Snuffy could be homeless.
Now, let’s get down to business.
1. Child support rates (with the exception of military/government employees) depend on the state. For most of the states in the Union, CS rates are capped at 15% of the father’s/provider’s pre-tax income. However, there are about a dozen states in which CS can be assigned at a rate as high as 35% of the provider’s/non-custodial parent’s pre-tax income (note: 10% higher than the amount of money that the federal government sees fit to charge.) Here’s the kicker: the states with the highest percentages of withdrawable CS are California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Massachusetts. Those five states hold literally 33% of America’s population (40 million citizens, 15 to 20 million in each of the other four states.). For all intents and purposes, there are about 20 million American men who have to ask themselves, “Is getting married *really* worth the risk?” There are millions of children who grow up watching (their own or someone else’s) Daddy being taken to the cleaners. And, just in case you didn’t notice, four of those states produce 25% of all of America’s profit as well.
2. In case you didn’t know, divorce is mostly a middle-middle to lower socioeconomic phenomenon. Even among the higher classes, a significant percentage of their divorces are committed by the “upwardly mobile”. To be clear-in America, *poor people* with *lower moral standards* make up the majority of divorces. Likewise, the majority of OOW births in America are among the same socioeconomic classes. And, obviously, the majority of the fathers/hook-up partners/guys who met the mother while drunk or high are also poor to middle class (because rich men rarely travel in the same circles as poorer women, and they give their real names and contact information to the “lower class” women with whom they *are willing to consort with* very rarely. Now, this part will have to be written as blatantly as possible, to make sure that you understand it clearly.
If. Most. American. Divorces. Are. Undertaken. By. Poorer. People.
And
Most. American. Out. Of. Wedlock. Births. Are. The. Result. Of. Lower. To. Middle. Class. Women. Being. Impregnated. By. Lower. To. Middle. Class. Men.
And
75%. Of. All. Americans. Earn. Less. Than. $800. A. Week.
Why would you expect CS amounts to average higher than $350/month per parent?
As with the example of the average net worth of African-American women, you are committing an apex fallacy error. You’re looking at CS payments from celebrities, high-powered businessmen, trust fund babies and investors, then making disparaging comments about the inability of franchise managers or Tilt-A-Whirl operators or bus drivers to “Man Up”. For every $100,000+/year earning man, there’s 7 men who earn half as much as him (4 of whom are essentially “working poor”.) For every $100,000+/year earning man who gets divorced, there are at least a dozen <$50,000/year earning men who get divorced (and who can and often do find themselves living in their friends'/parents' houses to make ends meet after paying their alimony and CS.) For every $100,000/year earning man who knocks some chick up, there are dozens of <$50,000/year men who learn that their current partner isn't really using birth control. Or who meets a woman with a ticking biological clock and after she buys a few beers…, etc. And the common denominator in all of those conceptions is simple: the woman chose that specific man, with his lower earning capacity to be the father.
SHE MADE THAT CHOICE. There are very few men in America who forcibly impregnate women. Roving “rape gangs” have never existed in this country. Even PUAs, for all of their limited numbers, have never made it a primary, secondary or even tertiary option for their ilk to forcibly seduce and impregnate women. IT. DOESN’T. HAPPEN.
If women want to live lives in which they can expect to receive higher levels of CS, they can make some changes in their lives. They can do things like:
Stay married longer. Divorce prior to the ten year mark, CS is capped at a lower rate. Also, all but the most liberal states will assume that the woman would be ready to go back to work (something that tends to lower the man’s CS burden.)
Not allow strangers to have unprotected sex with them on the first date (as has been noted, rape-triggered abortions account for 3.3% of all abortions in America. Even if we assume that the feminist shibboleth of “200,000 women are raped every year” is true, and we assume that every rape results in pregnancy, it wouldn’t account for the other 750,000+ abortions per year.)
Not get knocked up by band members, high school crushes, other students, “Bob from the mail room with the weed connection”, “he’s really a cool guy”, etc. It’s not that hard to avoid getting pregnant or staying pregnant if you really don’t want to be pregnant. As has been noted by large swaths of Manosphere readers, women tend to find it very easy to avoid getting pregnant or staying pregnant by guys who they don’t find attractive. If a woman can only find sexual attraction among lowlifes, deviants and assorted ne’ER-do-wells, she’s going to find it very difficult to get anything more than $500/month out of him. This isn’t rocket science, you aren’t going to get a $1,000+ CS check from a guy who earns $15/hour as the night manager at McDonald’s, no matter how “cool he is, like, when you really get to know him.”
Gah! The ignorance, it burns!
MaMu spitting some sick game up in this. Droppin atom bombs like his name is Enola Gay.
oh, btw… this all ended in divorce for me. I couldn’t acquiesce to all the crap. Won’t go into the cash prizes thing. It was/is hard on both of us.
imnobody,
“That’s me! The thing is that there is no other thing. If you want companionship in middle age, you have to get married. Modern society does not give you any alternatives. I am lucky, though, I have two sisters and a big extended family, so, when I feel really alone, I’ll move close to them.”
– Can’t you get companionship from other men? People you meet from hobbies or from your work for example? And surely there are other ways to find female companionship besides marriage? Is the problem of companionship in old age only a problem for men or for women (natural social creatures) too?
– I suppose things are different for your generation and for the country you live in. Everyone just got married like you say. But I think there would be a LOT of single people for my generation. I think a man without the responsibility and burden of supporting a family would have a lot of free time and resources to pursue all sorts of interests and entertainment opportunities. But I do wish I knew what it is like living at that age.
– I don’t really trust most old people from this country. They together with women seem to conspire to do what is in the worst interest of young men. So it is very difficult to talk frankly about these issues and have my many questions answered. But I greatly respect your opinion and thank you for sharing your experiences and wisdom.
I been wondering where you were for the past few days. I guess you were working on this. This essay is truly gifted thought and is one of the most powerful pieces you have ever written. Dalrock, you just might be one of the most dangerous men in America. Your ability to associate data, other writing, opinions from various sources, empirical observations from society, and then to produce a piece of writing like this is quite remarkable. You are one of the best examples of PostModernist possibility, a fucking Martin Luther of our age.
[D: Thank you.]
“The emotional aspect of sex cannot be divorced from the physical dimension of the sex act.”
At the beginning of that sentence it should be added,”For women”.
I can’t speak for every guy out there, but I can walk away from a woman I’ve just slept with without a second thought.
But then again, I’m never getting married, cohabiting, or doing anything than an occasional bout of “stress relief” with a willing female.
Deti said: Any woman who will not guarantee that she will provide sex to a husband at reasonable intervals should not marry. Period. Full stop.
Regular sex at reasonable intervals is the ONLY benefit a man gets from marriage. Everything else for a married man is burden and obligation — burdens and obligations the state can legally compel him to fulfill, even if she no longer lives with him.
So if a man can’t get an agreement from a woman for regular sex at reasonable intervals, there’s nothing in marriage for him.
———————————————————————-
While I agree that women are obligated to provide sex at regular intervals I do not understand why this is the only benefit of marriage for a man.
I asked my husband and he said the main benefit is companionship. Deti- Are you saying that companionship is a burden?
I always love the phrase “are you saying”
Much like “So you are saying” it really means: Here, I have created this red herring, please ignore all previous discourse. It is an utterly female thing to write.
The difference is one is a question and one is a statement. If my understanding of his comment is poor he has the opportunity to correct me. If it isn’t then he can confirm. Or he can ignore me entirely if that is his preference. You are grasping at straws to find something to complain about.
For me, companionship is important as well as sex. And sex is not just the sex act, but also the fun of living with someone who is close to you as a spouse but intriguingly different. Actual sex is just a small part of a much broader sexuality.
I agree with DH that a contractual marriage for the purpose of exchanging goods and services is unappealing. I’d like to think that my value as a wife goes beyond my usefulness to him. Likewise, I think my husband would like to be valued beyond his usefulness to me.
@mamu1977
Great post. Thanks for the facts and figures.
And once again, the women decide. Remember, that sexy bad boy probably does not have much long term income potential.
Say, are you moonlighting as a neo-re-deconstructionist lecturer of post-modernist literature, at some Enormous State U?
—————————————————
I was…..but alas, no tenure, the cry-sis got me , now Im a Pappa John’s driver, and the brief intellectual exchanges across front door thresholds leave me craving what I can only find here.
Dalrock
In defense of Dr. Mohler
I blame his age group cohort of pre feminist who have actual “wives” (ala Bill Bennit) and may also be Alpha’s. They were raised to “open doors for woman” and control the bad alpha’s.
I see it more as a question of emphasis than Scriptural error.
@Harlot
“The contract you enter into in marriage is for joint ownership of whatever you each bring in during the marriage. So if your wife earns a nice fat paycheck, or inherits a house, or wins Megabucks, half of that belongs to you because that’s the deal you struck. ”
Harlot, you are only proving my point. When you say “Whatever you each bring in during the marriage”, you must also include the sexual release that the woman brings to the table within m arriage. That is VERY important to a man, much more so than women.
Likewise, it is FAR more important to a woman that a man bring in assets (or the ability to secure assets), security and safety.
So again, I posit the question, by is she allowed to withdraw what he values, yet he is unable to withdraw what she values? Why is she entitled to alimony, half of assets (even if they derived from him) when he is not entitled to “blow-job night” post-divorce?
Your answer about “that was the contract” is just another way of saying “The State says it is so”..
If women have the right to pull away the commodity they bring to marriage, should men not have the same right?
Fitz,
I understand what you’re saying, but they refuse to wake up to reality or they do not really talk to the men they ask to “man up.” I think they won’t associate with those men or cherry pick the groups.
Discussing marriage with a tramp who sleeps around to humiliate her husband is like asking a deserter what’s it like to serve in the military.
Rock Throwing Peasant (writes)
“I understand what you’re saying, but they refuse to wake up to reality or they do not really talk to the men they ask to “man up.” I think they won’t associate with those men or cherry pick the groups.”
Yes: its extremely frustrating…it dovetails with “Churchananity” – and strokes the vanity of their old school patriarchal impulses.. Traditionalists like Bill Bennett & Kay Simon Horowitz who support marriage have yet to confront the new reality..
You cannot invoke Male responsibility in this day and age without first addressing female responsibility.. Its not enough to simply talk about poor woman’s troubles (Kay Simon) and then leap over to male responsibility. The woman’s responsibilities & culpability for her own situation is buried in sympathy for woman/children/”the poor” – and men are treated as “tough it up & man up” situation…..
This is the current paradigm that traditionalists seem locked into – The problems of upper-class marriages are non-existent..
This is also driven by a fear of keeping the feminist narrative for woman open… continue to pursue economic independence… colege advanced degree’s… and even sexual liceance. WHY? -because we dont want to get in an argument with are own daughters/young woman/feminists…
In short…These traditionalists want to nibble around the edges or seek to pick what looks like low hanging fruit…without & before confronting the source of the problem wich is the sexual revolution and it sexual liceance and feminism and its idea of female economic indepedence..
No one it seems wants to take on these sacred cows and totems..
Gabriella:
“Deti- Are you saying that companionship is a burden?”
No. I’m saying that most men don’t get that from their marriages; nor is it a benefit that I could not get somewhere else.
I have a couple of best friends from college. They being men, sex with and marriage to them is out of the question. They are compatriots extraordinaire, though.
The best thing about marriage is the sex. It is as David Collard said, a broader sexuality than simply the sex act. Men appreciate their wives sexually. I find many women physically, even sexually attractive, but laws, my own conscience and simple logistics dictate I can’t appreciate all of them.
And you and DH keep harping about me seeing marriage as a contractual exchange of goods and services. At bottom it is that. How long would you put up with your husbands not carrying their ends of the bargain? Not very long at all, I would posit. It makes my head spin to see how fast some women divorce their husbands for the slightest of transgressions.
Fitz and RTP,
While you are absolutely right, women will have a very difficult time accepting what you are saying about a marriage and it’s benefits. When broken down to the bare bones, as you have done, it paints women as prostitutes and men as John’s. It is very hard for women to see something broken down so barely and then remember that the man enters the marriage in a state of love as well. Rational thought tends to go by the ways side the minute a woman thinks she might be using her husband as a resource (of course he is) and that he is using her specifically for sex. Our brains reel against this, especially when women have been taught that respect is their right and they are guaranteed to receive it.
Fitz, I’m not sure no one wants to take them on. I think the loudest voices weren’t ridden out of town by the largely female congregations. They survived by placating and never shunning.
I find it frustrating because, while I don’t think that generation purposefully tried to raise the men and women of today, they do deliberately stand in the way of fixing the problem. More maddening is that they roar against the very people who are trying to wake the world up to the problems caused.
They raised their children to be “nice” and to be empowered. They cannot admit that parenting style, mixed with the toxic forces at play in our society, caused a lot of the problems. When people try to get them back to more honest reading of Scripture or a more honest understanding of humanity, they rally with their enemies to drive them from the conversation.
Pride, I suppose.
Gabriella:
thought experiment.
Let’s say Mrs. deti decides she will not have sex with me anymore. She decides that her companionship is sufficient to sustain our marriage. Besides, sex is a chore, and she just doesn’t get much out of it. And by the way, she will not hold up her end of the bargain, but I am expected to continue working.
How long do you think this marriage will last?
Reverse it now.
Let’s say I decide I will quit my job. I will not work or earn money anymore. I have decided that my companionship to Mrs. deti is sufficient to sustain our marriage. Besides, work is a chore, and I just don’t get much out of it. And by the way, I will not hold up my end of the bargain, but she is still expected to cook, clean, and service me sexually.
How long do you think Mrs. deti will stick around for that?
Rock Throwing Peasant (writes)
“They raised their children to be “nice” and to be empowered. They cannot admit that parenting style, mixed with the toxic forces at play in our society, caused a lot of the problems”
Very much so.. Two phenomena come to mind.
#1. “never hit a woman” – Became always defer to woman and shield them from the harsh realities of life..(even their own decision!!) – And so when your daughter is a slut and greedy career woman you don’t confront her, you actually facilitate her behavior.
#2. Princess – must always get what she want.. She “wants” what feminism told her to want so…You have to be supportive and facilitate her young naivete career ambitions and the sexual licence that goes with a youth spent outside of marriage & child rearing…Otherwise your not being a good man or Father toward your young princess..
#3. (This one is not often discussed) That generation of men are not comfortable talking about sex…and certainly not when it comes to their own daughters…
Sexual Liberation caught that generation flatfooted in its abruptness and tone surrounding sex. A delicate matter were Christians were used to tolerating a level of hypocrisy (There engaged or going steady and probably having sex…but that’s O.K. because its leading to marriage)
The line between implicitly condoning fornication of this caliber – (i.e. – its marriage directed) as apposed to the 10-15 years of cock carousel is hard to delineate and become fuzzy fast throughout the 70’s and 80’s. So Dad ended up just crossing his fingers when it came to his daughters behavior and hoping her decisions would lead to a stable marriage.
@Gabriella
Keep in mind that you and your husband made an agreement that neither can go outside the marriage for sex. So if you won’t have sex with him, you are telling him (not really you, but the hypothetical sex denying wife in the discussion):
Now, consider the quality of the companionship in that marriage. How much is he going to enjoy spending time with a woman who sends him that message loud and clear every day?
But why can’t he just love her for her?
@Fitz
I’m not sure I understand your defense of Dr. Mohler here. Are you saying that this very learned man who has taken on the task of educating future pastors doesn’t know that he happened to read every piece of Scripture he cites backwards, because his feminist wife has taken over his brain and removed all capability for reading comprehension? Or are you saying he knows he is turning each piece of Scripture he cites upside down, but he has a really good reason for wanting to do so? I don’t see a third option, but perhaps I’m missing something.
Fitz wrote:
deti wrote:
Absolutely no one in the church is talking about female responsibility to deal with the divorce epidemic. For all the man-up exhortations we’ve heard, how many are telling women to live up to their end of the bargain? Zero. It’s true – many women tend to bail when it gets tough. I wonder if it would be rude of me to start saying that to acquaintances? Maybe with a hint of sarcasm: “You were unhappy with some aspect of your husband, so you left him? Neat. Now, my husband and I didn’t write any escape clauses into our wedding vows. Good thinking on your part to do that.”
@Fitz
This is very much it. “It’s ok because they are going to get married anyway” quickly morphs into “You shouldn’t expect her to marry the wrong man just because she already had sex with him. Thank goodness she found out he wasn’t the right one before marriage, thereby preventing future divorce.” There is no logical barrier from the one to the other. When the premarital sex is happening one can make a plausible case that the wedding is merely a formality. When one of them gets bored or thinks they can get a better deal, it is even easier to suddenly remember that they aren’t actually married, they are just boyfriend and girlfriend.
The other part of it is a desire to avoid any real introspection on their (our) own actions, especially the mothers who happened to have an extra “college boyfriend” or three in the mix before she met the man she ultimately married. To be fair to the women, the binary nature of the “good girl”/”slut” paradigm is brutal here, and not something they want to see themselves on the wrong side of the line on. The husband understands this and likely has some kind of past of his own. If the choice is move the line or have the mother lose her “good girl” status, the choice is obvious.
Yo yo, you guys, 1 is 2 many!
The other part of it is a desire to avoid any real introspection on their (our) own actions, especially the mothers who happened to have an extra “college boyfriend” or three in the mix before she met the man she ultimately married. To be fair to the women, the binary nature of the “good girl”/”slut” paradigm is brutal here, and not something they want to see themselves on the wrong side of the line on. The husband understands this and likely has some kind of past of his own. If the choice is move the line or have the mother lose her “good girl” status, the choice is obvious
See, now this is why I wanted a firm definition a couple weeks ago about the word “slut”. I guess I wanted everyone to admit that there really is a binary nature of good girl/slut with a clear demarcation line of N>1. There is no way of doing a better job of educating the next generation if we are unwilling to say the hard truth (or admit the hard truth about ourselves).
SSM, yep I agree. Just remember, N> 1 is 2 many!
Dalrock (writes)
“I’m not sure I understand your defense of Dr. Mohler here. Are you saying that this very learned man who has taken on the task of educating future pastors doesn’t know that he happened to read every piece of Scripture he cites backwards, because his feminist wife has taken over his brain and removed all capability for reading comprehension? Or are you saying he knows he is turning each piece of Scripture he cites upside down, but he has a really good reason for wanting to do so? I don’t see a third option, but perhaps I’m missing something.
I am trying to say that because he is stuck in an age & mindset that is pre-feminist he has allowed these prejudices to accumulate and has not addressed current realities.
I see this all the time.. They are use to and comfortable chastising men for un-Christian behavior but are uncomfortable chastising women… Let 40 years of feminism make them even more gun shy and you end up with a almost purely anti-male emphasis.
This ENDS-UP or culminates in the misreading of scripture rather than being predicated in it.
If they had a better view of the current realities – of just how wild woman have become…they would (perhaps) be able to address the disparity…But they are “stuck in the 50’s” for reasons outlined above.
Its not much of an apology for Mr. Mohler its more like sympathy…although I have little to feel for him and this ilk. For instance I read Kay Simon Horowitz “manning-up” and felt that to be woefully one sided.
If all the men in America somehow got their act together despite the refusal of woman to get behind them…and became perfect gentleman and husband material they would still be met with woman who were imprinted with multiple partners, self centered in terms of personal fulfillment within marriage & unprepared for motherhood or being a supportive and caring wife.
This is the great frontier that traditionalist are still not willing to confront.
I think you should e-mail Dr. Mohler with a link to your article. I recently had this same discussion with my Parish Priest and found him to be very receptive.. We left with the understanding that he should research more and discuss more with males about our current woe’s. That this was to be done with an eye towards eventually addressing females behavior and decision making. One day perhaps it will make its way into programs and Sunday Homilies.
LOL, FH! I just watched the video. Now if we can just make a similar one for the ladies…because one spin around the carousel is too many. How many celebs could be get on board for that one?
@Fitz:
You’re lying to yourself as surely as the Bennett’s and Moehler’s do. They don’t read the NYT? They don’t read The Atlantic? They don’t read the Bible? They are not “stuck in the 50s”. They REFUSE to see the devastation in front of them; just as you are refusing to admit they do this. They remain in the 50s because they choose to idolize themselves and their upbringings; just as surely as lefty boomers idolize their Woodstock antics.
You’re not speaking of godly men caught in a trap, but vain men choosing a prison of the mind.
Dal,
“he happened to read every piece of Scripture he cites backwards, because his feminist wife has taken over his brain and removed all capability for reading comprehension?”
It wasn’t his feminist wife, it was his pre-feminist mother.
That’s the red pill for those wanting to go back to Christian headship. Women have always owned the moral (and thus the part of religion that speaks to morals) sphere, it’s just that they used to be more covert about it and used that influence in a way that helped build up civilization, rather than tearing it down as they are now.
Cane,
“They remain in the 50s because they choose to idolize themselves and their upbringings; just as surely as lefty boomers idolize their Woodstock antics.”
Exactly. The Me Generation to the grave.
They got their wish. They will die before they get old, but we all miss the wisdom that should have come with their age.
Fitz, I think it’s so easy for these men to pander to women and place the blame on men, as they already have families with their wives and therefore their outlook and advise is screwed towards promoting what worked for them and not current reality. Their wives had no partners before marriage, or very few, therefore they cannot have the understanding that other younger men have because they never spent time immersed in the sick hook-up culture.
To a large extent, they and their families are probably insulated from the extreme hook-up culture found at most Universities and this further erodes their ability to rationalise the behaviour of men towards women. It would be interesting to note where Mark Driscoll and Dr Mohler and others of their type live in America. Probably red States, which are mostly conservative in thought and deed. Maybe when their daughters turn 30 with no men on the horizons, they might begin to understand…
While I agree that women are obligated to provide sex at regular intervals I do not understand why this is the only benefit of marriage for a man.
I asked my husband and he said the main benefit is companionship. Deti- Are you saying that companionship is a burden?
———————————————————————————————–
Inserting the word ONLY is a cheap trick, one women seem unusually prone to. If you wish to insert the word ONLY, then add the word UNIQUE after it, it is the ONLY UNIQUE benefit of marriage.
Of course your husband said the main benefit is companionship. He has a whole world paradigm constructed to reinforce his saying that, and not just a little bit of fear of your reprisal. This is basic, it fits the man bad woman good as a subset …..sex bad companionship good in a relative sense sex is not to be treated as virtuous as companionship.
Just look at Barbara Rainy in my post above stating the biggest gift her hubby ever gave was to tell her he didnt care if they ever had sex again he just loved who she is.
Tell me, someone, anyone……why is that such a wonderful thing?
Why is that sentiment such a perceived pearl?
Mark Driscoll and Dr Mohler and others of their type live in America. Probably red States
—————————————————————
Driscoll lives in Washington State, as Michael Johnson sang, that is “Bluer than blue”
@Gabriella
Sexuality defines our relations with women. Sex is the deal breaker, without it a woman becomes your mother or sister.
Sex is the most integral part of an LTR. If it is established from the outset that a woman’s sexuality is a conditional reward for desired behavior from a man rather than a mutual experience based on mutually passionate desire, this LTR becomes fundamentally compromised because his first act of that LTR is capitulating to her terms for sex.
Sex is the deal breaker, but in my pointing it out I run the risk of coming across as “shallow” or “superficial.” It’s important, but it shouldn’t be that important, right?
Wrong. It is THAT important. Sex is the glue that holds relationships together.
As a man, if you encountered a woman who fit every ideal you ever had for a relationship – best friend, loving, 100% loyal, excellent mother, came from a great family, perfect HB 10, healthy both mentally and physically, emotionally available, intellectually stimulating, shared all your beliefs – who loved you unconditionally and wanted to marry you, but with one caveat; she would NEVER have sex with you under any circumstances, would you marry this person?
You could have children together through insemination and she would always be platonically affectionate with you; knowing full well before you did, and pledging to be completely faithful yourself, would you spend the rest of your life in a completely sexless marriage with an otherwise ideal person?
Remember this sexless state doesn’t come after having had sex before (due to an injury or disability), it’s a pre-condition for the relationship and you cannot seek sexual release by any other avenue.
This is how important sex is. People (christians in particular) tend to think of love as coming in different varieties and colors – platonic, fraternal, familial, erotic, agape, etc. All of this is nonsense. Love is love, it’s how it’s expressed that’s different. I love my Mom, my brother, my best friend and my daughter, but I only fuck my wife – that’s what makes us husband and wife, not brother and sister. Sex can be an expression of love or it can be an act of recreation, but it is always a prerequisite for an intersexual relationship.
It’s time we all stopped deemphasizing the importance of sex and accept it for what it is. Every time we think we’re taking some moral high-road by saying it’s superficial or shallow to place such importance on sex, we only do a disservice to ourselves and our lovers. We’re only screwing ourselves by thinking that we’re in some way above sexuality in some lame self-delusion that in stating so will make us more desirable and set us apart from the rest of the herd (who are also claiming to be “above sex” anyway). It IS that important, so start giving it the respect it deserves. You do yourself no favors by desexualizing yourself.
I don’t know SSM, celebs function outside normal reality. Their life is an ‘act’ after all…
I see Lady Gaga now has 30 million followers on twitter. Yo go grrrrrrrl!
empathologicalism
Say, are you moonlighting as a neo-re-deconstructionist lecturer of post-modernist literature, at some Enormous State U?
—————————————————
I was…..but alas, no tenure, the cry-sis got me , now Im a Pappa John’s driver, and the brief intellectual exchanges across front door thresholds leave me craving what I can only find here.
I completely understand. On the one hand, you could restrict your deliveries only to those zip codes known to contain tenured faculty, but on the other hand given that they are all lousy tippers it would not be financially worth the trouble.
Perhaps we should start a new pizza company; Camus’ Pizza, with a motto “The Stranger delivers”. Or perhaps not…
Gabriella,
“I agree with DH that a contractual marriage for the purpose of exchanging goods and services is unappealing. I’d like to think that my value as a wife goes beyond my usefulness to him. Likewise, I think my husband would like to be valued beyond his usefulness to me.”
Agreed.
Does going beyond imply abandoning the usefulness or retaining it while adding something more?
some lame self-delusion that in stating so will make us more desirable and set us apart from the rest of the herd (who are also claiming to be “above sex” anyway). It IS that important, so start giving it the respect it deserves. You do yourself no favors by desexualizing yourself.
——————————————————————————-
This is what men do. They try to pull the ole Im not like those other guys trick, because as a teen, at least in my generation, that was a line that worked sometimes. The gal lifted off the back seat of the car to remove the undergarment because I said I was not like the other guys….I just ended up getting the same thing.
Lots of men never grew out of the urge to claim to not be like other guys.
Now in middle age they will do it for the simple approval of a random woman on a blog site, in lieu of sex.
As an aside, that manifests in many different ways, not just how they comport with women.
I’d like to think that my value as a wife goes beyond my usefulness to him.
—————————————————————————————–
Why?
Its a serious question.
“Namae nanka,
Same goes for you. I am not the one saying men marry women “just for” the uterus and vagina. I am saying the opposite.”
Opposite means what exactly? What do other things have to do with marriage as a necessity?
“Why would any woman want to get married if it means her husband has the legal right to force her to have sex against her will and physically coerce her to do what he wants?”
Cruelty used to be grounds for divorce. Assault in marriage wasn’t tolerated, domestic violence wasn’t taken lightly, but no one was hysterical and propagandist(oh noes patriarchy, run for your lives) about it like feminists.
Marriage ddidn’t confer the right on husband to assault his wife for sex, but that her wife signs away “against her will”. If she doesn’t want to continue that arrangement, she shouldn’t have got into it in the first place. And she should leave of her own accord.
Why do you keep lying again and again DH? Or why do you keep believing in feminist history?
As for sex being a quid pro quo, don’t really get why men shouldn’t be the ones getting paid, after all it’s not like women can control the monthly discharge from their vaginas let alone giving something away in the act of sex.
And that’s why there was a time when prostitutes got the punished for swindling a man out of his hard earned money, before the feminists raised hue and cry about it. Now the flimsy argument of “poor women selling their bodies” is used in feministan Sweden to criminalize men while letting women go free.
“The contract you enter into in marriage is for joint ownership of whatever you each bring in during the marriage.”
No it’s not you moron. Feminists fought for the Married Women’s property rights, look above, I gave that link in my first post.
Before that they would tell you that women were property of their husbands.
“By the Married Women’s Property Acts a woman has complete control over all property acquired or inherited by her in any way, free from any claim on the part of her husband. “
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Legal_Subjection_of_Men#Matrimonial_Privileges_Of_Women.
The suffragete’s husband went to prison because she wouldn’t pay the taxes on her income, where was the joint ownership exactly?
Similar would be the child custody laws. Today’s feminists would tell you that patriarchy gave away children to women because they were the primary caretakers, but the reality is that a feminist got it changed from default father custody in the first place.
So if your wife earns a nice fat paycheck, or inherits a house, or wins Megabucks, half of that belongs to you because that’s the deal you struck.
LOL and it would get changed once it becomes a losing proposition for many women. Look at Massachusetts alimony law change. All this was in the first post’s link.
primary caretaker of the house and the kids
gee, I don’t know how many housewives come as plubmer, electrician, construction-worker combined into one. Nor does one see nanny-certificates on most.
maybe you should have struck a bargain that is more congenial to you
precisely, once you realize that the law and women’s natures makes such bargains impossible, you change the law. Despite feminists screaming bloody murder, and women’s “nyah nyah”ing.
—————–
“I agree with DH that a contractual marriage for the purpose of exchanging goods and services is unappealing.”
unappealing to whom? And there hasn’t been an exchange for a long time, it’s been men giving and women taking. Once it reverses, it’s oppression time again, laws must be changed, patriarchy must be overthrown!
“I asked my husband and he said the main benefit is companionship. Deti- Are you saying that companionship is a burden?”
His main benefit is companionship, and yours? And what exactly does marriage do to make you his companion? Your peace of mind? Hospital visitation rights?
“Yet, despite this wreckage, she *likes* feminism. She could be a poster-woman for why young girls should not touch feminism with a 10-foot pole, but she nonetheless *likes* feminism…”
It’s like I said, she is either stupid or disingenuous. Like most of the brainwashed idiots who call themselves feminists she keeps babbling on how marriage means this and that, while not seeing that it reduces the whole concept to ruins. Which is what the real feminists wanted and in which they have succeeded.
Dalrock
This is very much it. “It’s ok because they are going to get married anyway” quickly morphs into “You shouldn’t expect her to marry the wrong man just because she already had sex with him. Thank goodness she found out he wasn’t the right one before marriage, thereby preventing future divorce.” There is no logical barrier from the one to the other. When the premarital sex is happening one can make a plausible case that the wedding is merely a formality. When one of them gets bored or thinks they can get a better deal, it is even easier to suddenly remember that they aren’t actually married, they are just boyfriend and girlfriend.
This leads to the observation that there is no bright line for women not to cross, in the mainstream culture anymore. I pointed out a while back in a different comment stream that women who go to college as virgins are pressured to “get rid of it”, “get it over with” ASAP. Outside of religious subgroups, that bright line is seen as liberation. Once she’s done that, there’s no more bright lines visible. It’s all fuzzy / grey area, until some really high partner count is reached or so egregious Girls Gone Wild moment happens that goes viral on the internet. Then she’s suddenly transitioned to ‘slut”, but there was no one single point all the way back to first sex that would have been the “If I cross this line, I’m a slut” moment. This partly accounts for the sudden fury that will arise from any HUSsy should a man opine that, well, for him a partner count of N = slut, where N is equal to or less than the HUSsy in question. A woman with a partner count of 5 is not going to like being told she’s a slut, because back when she was practicing the preferred female form of promiscuity – serial polyandry – nobody told her this. Shucks, all her friends agreed that they were not sluts, so how dare any man retroactively pin that scarlet S on her? No, the process has to be a one-way one: women get to decide what “slutty” is, and therefore when to stop riding the carousel, and men better be ready to Man Up on command.
Prudence would dictate that women therefore should be extra careful, and some of them are, but the dominant culture sneers at prudence. There’s a real slippery slope here that is gradual enough that it looks almost level, at first. There’s no easy way to tell a young woman that men’s opinions will matter to her in 10 years or less, and she better be prepared to face that fact before 29 years of age.
Interesting excerpt from Legal Subjection of Men:
“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. ]”
Stridhan seems to come from Hindi. Stri = woman, dhan = wealth
“I am having a hard time disagreeing with anything DH said at 3:35. Do I loose my man-card?”
You should. The laws while being gender-neutral on paper, doesn’t mean much. For instance read the last year’s story of the german heiress whose pre-nup was enforced in Britain thus making history. Besides the gender-neutrality in child custody laws(and sentencing time for crimes etc.) and the history of such gender-neturality in law laid out in The Legal Subjection of men.
And every man should know Briffault’s Law:
The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.
There are a few corollaries I would add:
1. Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.
2. Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit (see corollary 1)
3. A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male (which is not bloody likely).
http://www.stickmanweekly.com/ReadersSubmissions2009/reader5546.htm
FH
It would be interesting to note where Mark Driscoll and Dr Mohler and others of their type live in America.
I don’t know where Mohler resides, but Driscoll runs a church in Seattle, one of the most left wing areas around. It’s easy to claim to be “conservative” and “traditional” in a place that is a colder version of San Francisco – by comparison to almost everyone around, of course. Driscoll’s Mars Hill church is so successful, that satellites have been set up – people go to church in a kind of movie theater, sing, have collection, etc. and Driscoll preaches via TV link.
It’s no accident that Driscoll panders to women. That’s where the money is.
FH
I don’t know SSM, celebs function outside normal reality. Their life is an ‘act’ after all…
Yes, well put. So tell daughters that.
I see Lady Gaga now has 30 million followers on twitter. Yo go grrrrrrrl!
There was an article linked on Drudge yesterday claiming that 70% of them are fake…
I know I was shocked. If we can’t trust self-promoting, solipsistic pop stars to tell the truth, who can we trust?
empath wrote:
That is so incredibly sad. He seriously failed that fitness test. Talk about dancing for your executioner…
AR wrote:
Yes! Right! That is why I wanted the slut definition. Let’s have a demarcation line. Nobody ever called me a slut before FH did and I was pissed. After some thought, I was like, Yep. Did the serial boyfriend thing from age 18-21, so even though I don’t have a double-digit partner count, I needed to change my thinking about that so I can be clearer in how I will counsel my daughters and other girls over whom I have some influence.
Dalrock, Anon Reader:
your observations lead to mine that this is why we continue to struggle with:
1. what is a slut
2. what N constitutes sluthood
3. what is acceptable and not acceptable in female behavior
4. at what point does slutty behavior cause irreparable damage rendering her completely and irrevocably unfit for marriage
AR is right that women need to be very careful. It’s only in hindsight that most women can finally figure out they are sluts, but by then it’s too late. For most women, her friends are also sluts, and some of them have much higher Ns than she does. So because she doesn’t have as high an N as her friend Slutty Samantha, she’s not a slut. Samantha might be a slut, but she’s not.
I have heard many, many women say that they honestly didn’t know having sex with men into the double digits would cause them any problems later in life. “No one told me it was wrong. Everyone else was doing it. It seemed like the thing to do at the time. I just thought when I was ready to get married, I’d find someone and we would get married and live happily ever after.”
I don’t get how any woman could think that a double digit N, blackout drunk sex, and a series of ONSs is a good idea. I don’t get how any woman could think that her future husband will just gloss over that.
Really, we struggle with these things because of feminism.
Feminism has literally changed the way that we as a society, and I in particular, think about sex and relationships.
Sixty years ago our ancestors didn’t struggle with this at all. A girl has an N of 2? Slut. She’ll be lucky to find any man willing to marry her. She’s damn lucky she didn’t get knocked up.
“The most important sections of the act were:
1. The wages and earning made by a wife were to be held by her for her own separate use, independently from her husband. The meaning of wages included money made from any employment, occupation, or trade, or the use of any skill such as a literary, scientific, or artistic skill that resulted in money being made. This section also covered investments made with the money earned. ”
“A long and energetic campaign by different women’s groups and some men led to the passing of this Act.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Married_Women%27s_Property_Act_1870
as for child custody going to mothers since 70s due to being primary caretakers(oooh it’s so gender-neutral, men should thank us feminists for that), it would make more sense for men to make it default father(as in the one who earns or earns much more) and the mother(as in the primary caretaker) has to have nanny duties, for which she might be recompensed by her ex-spouse and given a place to sleep for the night. (after all the world needed more fathering as the feminists used to say before changing their tune)
If US doesn’t self-destruct before the gender role-reversal is complete or the war amongst women like in Massachusetts alimony reform is won by the career harpies, expect these changes to be put in.
@sunshinemary —
I think that’s the key. Culturally we (by default) accept rotating polyandry as being legitimate when it is merely the preferred form of promiscuity among women. In reality, it is where women incubate their taste for alpha while undermining their capacity to bond with their future husband. It also allows them a great deal of scope to experiment with using sex as a tool to get what they want– which they will naturally apply to their husband later on– inadvertently destroying the foundation of trust and commitment in their marriage in the process.
@ Some Guy – also, I think we need to start proclaiming that the double standard exists and is okay. My husband’s N>30, and I don’t think this has affected his ability to bond with me. Of course, fornication is a sin for everyone, but in terms of damage control…
@sunshinemary —
I shy away from mentioning the double standard…. Your typical feminist gets enough righteous indignation from its existence that she can justify anything she might want to do. (On any significant question of morality, the conversation stops as soon as she can find any sort of moral equivalency….)
@ssm, I think that’s why someone pointed out that the male version of “slut” isn’t “player,” but “coward.” We have more of an emotional connection to moments of action/violence than to sex.
You run away from a fight you should be in and some men will call you a coward. You run away from 30…dude, you’re a coward.
You bang one guy you shouldn’t and some will call you a slut. You bang 30…hun, you’re a slut.
SSM: This may come across as an insult, and I don’t mean it so, but someone’s got to say it anyway, if for no other reason than for someone (else) to debate a definite answer to it: if he’s N>30, he’s got some serious alpha cred, and women with alphas practically fall all over themselves to convince themselves that He Truly Loves Me And Only Me. On what concrete grounds, then, do you (or anyone else) say that high male Ns don’t affect their ability to bond with women? I mean, between you and Roosh, whose word on the matter should I trust?
I’d like to think that my value as a wife goes beyond my usefulness to him.
The worst thing would be to feel that I was of little or no use to a man. Why I am here if I’m no use? Why the disparaging of usefulness? Life isn’t all about grand spiritual enlightenment or mind blowing experiences. Much of life is utilitarian.
“This conversation reminded me of a similar one I had at an earlier time with a female colleague of mine. Her husband sought spousal support from her and she was equally outraged over it. As she put it “it’s not something you bargain for when you get married”.
“In the context of a child support dispute, one of my female clients lamented that “so I went out and built this successful business and my reward is I have to pay child support to him?”.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-silberberg/whats-good-for-the-goose_b_254808.html
@unger
I think it takes men longer to reach that point than it does women. Not that it doesn’t matter at all or there’s no effect, but a woman who has had 10 lovers is a lot worse off than a man who has had 10. Similar to how a 40 year-old woman is, in a reproductive sense, older than a 40 year-old man. It’s just the way biology works.
@Cane
+1 Cane. My god I hate Baby Boomers.
Deti,
I think they don’t realize their future husband probably isn’t engaging in the same kind of behavior, either because he chooses not to or because he’s a shy beta and shunned by girls. They assume that everyone’s participating except for the real losers who are not even on their radar, and they’ll eventually marry an older version of one of the alpha studs they’re banging at the moment. When these women eventually encounter a mature and confident greater beta, she thinks he’s some sort of strange anomaly to have made it into his 20s with such a low partner count. By the time they are 30, like Stuart Brazell, they finally realize that you “sleep with the bad boys, you don’t marry them.”
empath wrote:
“Just look at Barbara Rainy in my post above stating the biggest gift her hubby ever gave was to tell her he didnt care if they ever had sex again he just loved who she is.
“Tell me, someone, anyone……why is that such a wonderful thing?
Why is that sentiment such a perceived pearl?”
Because, it confirms the notion that her beauty can tame the savage beast. All the while, maintaining the double standard that he must be changed while, due to the inherent goodness of the woman, she cannot be expected to change. Or if she does, it is in response to him.
Women, relegated to being pawns of their environment.
Rather, and I say this with love, Dennis should have responded that at his hands, he was going to transform her into HIS ravenous tigress (dare I say, monogamous slut?).
I hate Baby Boomers
——————————————
Thoughtful
Cane Caldo wrote:
This is the perfect becoming the enemy of the good. You assume that these God-fearing Christians are doomed to worship the idol of feminism above the cross of Christ — and you assume this by virtue of online writings and videos.
My point is, yours is a loser’s approach. Lincoln: “Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?” Your disposition requires you to mistake their conviction based in error for permanent obstinacy and therefore enmity, and I see no evidence of the impossibility of redemption in honest Christian preachers like Driscoll or Moehler. I see them imbuing their errors with passion, just like the rest of us sinners do, captured in the thrall of superbia. Nothing that cannot be overcome.
Matt
Yes, of course. When a man is not meeting the aesthetic expectations of a supervising woman, he is a putrid, hideous abomination. But if men ever dare to hold any aesthetic expectations about women, why, that would be oppression! Cruel enforcement of “The Beauty Myth!” Driving the poor girls into anorexia!
And Mohler makes sure that he pays homage to Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin.
It’s not a double standard, folks. The man does not bond to the woman; she bonds to him. She is the tape. The danger a man (and his woman) run into when the man has a high partner count is that his spouse won’t be able to bond to him. In both cases of high partner count, the effect is the same: her ability to stick is reduced. It’s not a double standard. She is the tape: he is the object being taped.
Think of it this way: If the area to be taped has been taped multiple times, and also had the tape removed several times, there will start to be a build up of dust, lint, and old residue that will render future tape less adhesive.
The Bible’s analogy of “cleave” is better. The man cleaves the woman, and she is fit to his axe. The more wood a man chops, the duller his axe becomes. Every tree chopped renders the next one more likely to be broken by the application of the axe, than cleaved by it.
Matthew King said:
This is excellent. I normally don’t comment on what you write because I have nothing intelligent to add, but I wanted to acknowledge that your sober thoughts are appreciated and give me pause.
Lad:
I’ve wrestled with almost all parts of the SMP and the MMP. This — the concept that women believe a high N is not harmful — is one of the last concepts I’ve struggled with. Your answer is part of it:
“I think they don’t realize their future husband probably isn’t engaging in the same kind of behavior, either because he chooses not to or because he’s a shy beta and shunned by girls. They assume that everyone’s participating except for the real losers who are not even on their radar, and they’ll eventually marry an older version of one of the alpha studs they’re banging at the moment. When these women eventually encounter a mature and confident greater beta, she thinks he’s some sort of strange anomaly to have made it into his 20s with such a low partner count.”
The other part has to be feminist upbringing — that men and women are exactly the same except that women are essentially men who can have babies. Therefore, women can have sex like men — pursue like men, f**k like men, and pump and dump men.
Anonymous Reader wrote [concurred by Dalrock]:
Do they indeed call themselves “TradCons”?
I too refuse to split hairs, and you mistake my argument for semantical fastidiousness or a facile truth-in-labeling plaint.
No. Rather I am criticizing the Dalrock/gameosphere tendency to ghettoize itself with preciously defined jargon that goes contrary to the plain meaning of a phrase. (Vox Dei is the worst offender of this sci-fi gimcrack geekery.) Passers-by like me will not have the benefit of familiarity with code-words. The community thus undoes itself with acronyms and insider-speak (like, say, “PUA”). There is a utility to short hand, of course, but the success of your project depends on uniting it to more mainstream modes of thinking — without losing its conviction! tricky, I know — or else suffer the fate of all passionate but infertile cults. Unfortunately, true-believers tend to ghettoize themselves and marginalize their community in “tests of purity” and declarations of holier-than-thou incorruptibilty, which alienates would-be allies.
Not at all. I “tak[e] issue” with their “pedestalizing, vagina-worshipping, feminized, yes-dear, doormat mindset” as much as, if not more than you. But you are doing it all wrong.
Men who are attracted to “traditional conservatism” will be duped into the bait-and-switch technique of Driscoll’s cryptofeminism. Just like you, they will eventually sour of their charlatan spiel and seek community with those who saw through them.
But instead of telling these men-seeking-traditionalism that they were misled by Driscoll from the get-go, you are making a much more complicated (and less persuasive case) that traditionalism itself is wrong, and therefore they were wrong to have pursued it in the first place. It is easier to simply point out how Driscoll doesn’t represent traditionalism so much as he abuses the term.
This is how allies are gathered.
Matt
P.S. Driscoll “AMOGs” his flock of pliant beta sheep. Like most men of grand convictions, he mistakes his Pharisaical self-righteousness for epistemological certitude. In those first-principle arguments I would be happy to be out-AMOGed because I would be improved by the experience. Unfortunately, it’s doubtful it will occur.
I encounter superficiality in this manner of thinking all the time and am disappointed all the time. If a lawyer wants to make a good closing argument, it helps to be conversant in the justification of the rule of law. Few rhetoricians are. They are used to making sophistic displays that excite sympathetic audiences. (If you have facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither, pound the table.) Rarely are they called to justify themselves at the level of which I’m speaking.
Dalrock wrote:
Drift socks align themselves with the wind. “Athwart history/’Stop!'” is a windshield, “stopping” and redirecting it.
Use whatever terms and analogies you want. I am commenting on their relative ineffectiveness in the hope that you will think more deeply about strategy and gather allies to your cause, which is a worthy cause.
You brought it up …
… and so, “TradCon” that I am, I will bring us back to what the metaphor classically signifies:
The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit.
Wordsmiths though we imagine ourselves to be, we communicate best and most broadly, like Jesus, through parable and metaphor. It pays to cogitate on those rhetorical devices, to make them precise, to refine them in order that they serve our cause with the many rather than creating interesting but ultimately useless intramural thought-projects with the few. Art reaches and teaches, rhetoric preaches. Poesy trumps polemic.
Matt
@Matt King
You are not acknowledging that I said they might be useful if they step down from their positions as leaders.
Your appeal to Lincoln is well-chosen because I am not a fan. He destroyed the American republic by doing precisely what you would have us do: force on us conscription into his version of what America should be like.
For my side of the argument: I choose Saul as the champion of Bennetts and Mohler; who would not accept that his time of usefulness had ended, and that another had been chosen. Despite the extraordinary efforts of David to spare him he would not step aside until both he and his son were dead–devastating the lives of all Israel, and setting a tragic course for generations of Israelites.
Sounds like Lincoln after all.
Because, it confirms the notion that her beauty can tame the savage beast. All the while, maintaining the double standard that he must be changed while, due to the inherent goodness of the woman, she cannot be expected to change. Or if she does, it is in response to him.
———————————————————————————————————–
Sorta. (re the first sentence), may seem a small difference but I’d say control instead of tame, and I do not like to parse words for fun.
I think the rest of your answer is more accurate.
There is another reason that is very simple. She believes it because she has been raised hearing it as what to believe, never taught or imparted, rather just hearing the notion in the back ground.
Remember SSM’s comments about how her first nature as a believer was to be a shrewish moralizer? That plays in here as well.
Ive had countless conversations on line with mixed groups about sex in marriage and aw a hard line drawn by most Christian woman and tons of hapless white knight Christian men (like Gariels husband who dutifully told her its her companionship he values, and Dennis rainy tells his wife no sex = AOK cuz a the lerve he feels. As much as the church preaches this glorious view on sex somehow they convey something that is not real, not the way they say it is.
One woman on CF was always proud to tell us how her husband feels about sex, never realizing the her overt attitude would cause a man with utmost integrity to lie or spin truth, he told her sex never even entered his mind unless she was physically in the same room. This was a woman who had invented a term she called “beasty sex” which she built her own biblical case for the fact it was sin, that if the man wants physical release and approaches the wife for sex….that is beasty sex and a sin. She OF COURSE (see my reference above to control) was the arbiter of this, being the more moral by nature.
Another woman took a similar track. She said that the only innate good sex was that which seeks a spiritual oneness sort of apogee, having nothing to do with physical desire, which served to diminish Gods intent for sex.
They have made shit up basically and the motive is control, and drama/empathy. How better to get empathy than to be wronged by your husband. How better to be wronged more frequently than to invent nebulous ideas and name self as the authority on them by fiat. Hell you will always be in a state of abuse in some way when you do that.
These women say sex isnt even a co equal part of marriage,. rather its icing on cake etc etc, it FOLLOWS all these other wonderful more spiritual and God ordained things.
There is a site that is for curing porn addiction. One of the authors, perhaps the founder even, is Pastor Ed. The site is
http://mychainsaregone.org/MCAG-welcome.htm
If you want to see just a tad of the stuff that under girds the beliefs that causes women to be so wrong on sex in marriage while paying lip service (no pun….really….) to it topically then review what this guy says here. he speaks of a guy who needed to be *cured* because seeing his wife naked after the shower would cause him arousal. Ed himself speaks of (I may have this slightly off in paraphrase) sitting nude together in bed with his wife and he is absolutely trained to not be physically compelled by her nude presence, and how they will talk, discuss books and things, and only if he feels sufficiently that he is connecting to her absent a fleeting thought about sex, then he proceeds with sex sometimes.
Lets not discount the porn ministry and overt posture of the church on porn for its (maybe well intended, Im not pro porn) damaging effect to married sexual relations.
Listening to a woman melt down at the His Needs Her Needs seminar my wife and I attended 10 plus years ago is what set me to reading about this stuff. The 10 week class dealth with one of those famous needs per week, saving for the last session the mens survey says number one need, sex. The teacher brought his wife to sort of apologize to the women that this was number one for men, and they asked folks to study and read that week to prepare for that final need.
The night of the class the tension was palpable. Most of the couples had clearly been arguing to the point the teacher opened joking that that always happened.
Finally one women couldnt control herself and said she could not stand it that we had to include that because, she stammered, its just, just, …….different.
you mistake my argument for semantical fastidiousness or a facile truth-in-labeling plaint.
————————————————————————–
Thank you…..I cannot even come to grips with how he saw that as your intent, especially with the backdrop of that same semantical fastidiousness so often being THE basis for discussion here on certain topics, and not a peep of complaint.
Your appeal to Lincoln is well-chosen because I am not a fan
————————————————–
I promise Cane, I’m not trying to play surrogate here. But I think you have misunderstood his appeal just as AR misunderstood his other points as trivial definition debates.
He didn’t appeal to Lincoln. Your rebuke of Lincoln is completely irrelevant to what he said. Lincoln just happened to make the statement that was the operative part of his point. Had Barney the dinosaur said it it would be no less true (or false) hence that he is a goofy man in a purple suit dancing around with the inappropriately named other dinosaur BJ would also be irrelevant.
@empathologicalism —
What is the deal with that Needs seminar and sex…?
Are the women holding out on their husbands…? Are they conscious of it…? Do they feel guilty? Has anyone *ever* called them on it…? How many of the couples would have outright sexless marriages…? And then overlaying that… you have to crack a lot of jokes to cover up the tension. Because no speaker would dare teach 1 Corinthians 7…? Would these women faint if someone did…?
I know my wife would rather it be a communication problem than a faithfulness problem. But tell me again… what exactly is going on in this scenario…?
That last sentence was very poorly worded., sheesh, but I think I was clear, discrediting the person making a quote doesn’t materially affect the aptness of the quote itself.
Some guy, I don’t follow your questions. I cant tell if you are making a statement or if you are not familiar with that book His Needs her Needs. In case…..its a pretty famous Christian book where some 45000 couples were surveyed and asked their top needs in marriage. The results define the top 5 for men and for women. Each need is then discussed in these seminars. Womens number 1 was affection (screams “NONSEXUAL”)
Am I off base?
Southern “talk”:
Your appeal to Lincoln is well-chosen because I am not a fan. He destroyed the American republic by doing precisely what you would have us do: force on us conscription into his version of what America should be like.
The South has 9 million people at the time of the Civil War. 4 million of them were slaves with no rights who could be killed at whim provided the slavemaster wasn’t an idiot about it. I await your explanation of how a country can be “free” and 45% of it’s population have no rights at all.
Slavery WAS the South. The South WAS Slavery. They CANNOT be separated.
@Matt King
Have you paused to consider what excellence his terms and analogies have gathered so far? I am very often the smartest man in the room, both demonstrably, and by measure. Here, I don’t even crack the top ten demonstrably, and I feel pretty certain that my measure is respectively even further to the left of this blog’s curve.
That’s not to say we ought to sit around patting ourselves on the back, but–goodness!–keep things in perspective.
@empath–
Sorry if I’m unclear. I have never heard sex dealt with in a Christian setting like you describe. It sounds like the men’s #1 need was treated as an embarrassing joke. I guess I’m asking… what the heck were those people thinking…? (I’m asking for speculation on this as I’m sure it would play out similarly at my church….)
@whatever
If the northern states had let their slavery-corrupt brothers go, the North would have been a free country, and I would have been happy to be a part of it.
I am not an apologist of the South, and didn’t play one above. The fact remains that for all intents-and-purposes Lincoln made himself emperor of a new country, by conquest. This new country was no longer stained by the sin of explicit slavery of some men, but formed now by a kinder, gentler implicit slavery of all men.
You appear to be of a mind that there are only two ways to look at a bad situation: the way you like, and the way you don’t. In fact, there are many, and they are almost all bad.
Some Guy
You were probably clear…..
Anyway, the setting is 10 couples, the format is an hour discussing a need, I wouldnt assume too much about how sex is dealt with there. The other needs were things like
an attractive spouse
a helpful spouse
a recreational partner (sports/hobbies)
communication
affection
I don’t remember them all, and Ive sense grown to not be a huge fan of that book as well as the 5 love languages one. they may be astute observations, but they lack the utility they seem initially to represent.
So the idea was to discuss the need….sex/whatever…..and legitimize the needs and explain them to the other gender, to get the one with the need to be seen as reasonable an the one who should meet the need to grasp its importance. Sex per se is not discussed functionally at all.
The man whose wife went apoplectic followed her comment with his own steely words….after the ladies had their wrongheaded beliefs affirmed by the teachers….those being the story all Christian men are sold that we gotta lather her up all day and jump through higher and narrower hoops all day and then she will be willing to have sex that night…..after that bunk, the guy said yea, then we go to bed and the phone rings and somehow she has had a bad day…..cancelled.
According to game… women’s #1 need (affection) is… not actually what they really need/want.
Right, the really prefer the
Bored game called Risk
I believe Deti quoting Lad at 10.31 is spot-on:
Promiscuous women really do assume that because they can sleep with men, effortlessly, that all men are doing likewise – and thus a high partner count in a woman is not in any way off-putting to a man. I have come across this but – in my role as a greater Beta – merely, I suppose, gamed the woman in question – it really was candy from a baby.
What I do notice sometimes is that women are, or at least appear to be, impressed with a woman who has ‘success with men’. Perhaps they would like to be like that woman but have some impulse control or lack of extraversion that restrains them. They assume, perhaps, that men are not as easy to bed as they actually are, and that their friend being popular with men is thus showing some valuable skill they wish they had. Nothing of course can be more more delusional.
Of course Opus, because in the broken child-mind that is inside the empty space that is the anglo-womans skull she believes that her ‘virtuous’ body requires a valuable skill to get into the nearby mens washroom to ride a DJ bareback. Thus the DJ too must require a valuable skill too.
“I fucked that DJ, so I must be doing SOMETHING right, look at what a catch I am!”
From the OP: “Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed.” This is unassailable doctrine in Christian circles.
If men’s needs aren’t being met… then they are not doing it right. He’s gotta “jump through higher and narrower hoops all day and then she will be willing to have sex that night.”
Books like “His Needs, Her Needs” and “Love and Respect” make a show of dealing with men and women equally… but the guys end up with the short end of the stick. He is responsible for doing more and doing it better. She gets a pass if she’s not feeling it.
This really distresses me.
@Some Guy
Asking a woman what she needs, as that “His Needs, Her Needs” survey did, is foolishness. We servants ought to be asking The Master what we need to do. (I know, I can here some of you screeching already.) If we trust God to be good, then why the hesitation to trust that His Word is good for us? It is the primary way any of us know Him, or know that He’s good!
Read Song of Solomon 2:8-17, the description of the man, and what he does. He is having an adventure, going through the world, and then comes to peer through her garden gate and invite her to come with him. Then he goes, and does it–not waiting for her reply. She will follow, or she won’t.
Then read Song of Solomon 3:6-11, the description of how the man approaches the woman: he is strong, armed, surrounded by stout friends, and bedecked with what he has won from his time out in the world. This is where Game fails in comparison to the theology of marriage. You can pretend some things, but others must be duly earned. There’s something else here, with which I’m hoping Desiderius can help me with.*
Besides: the fact remains that women often don’t know how to verbally prioritize very well. Men usually do. Watch her actions to know what she finds important.
@Desiderius
I’ve been pondering your idea about women being the keepers of morals, for most of the day. Is this what is referred to in Song of Solomon 3:11
Go out, O daughters of Zion,
and look upon King Solomon,
with the crown with which his mother crowned him
on the day of his wedding,
on the day of the gladness of his heart.
Empath- It was Deti that used the word “only”. And it was the word “only” that I found peculiar, especially since he said “everything else is a burden”.
I think it was probably a badly formed sentence because obviously the other things in marriage are not a burden..like friendships, children (hopefully), and whatever specific services a spouse provides.
I don’t think women marry for financial provision. I think women get married to have companionship first and children second. I think men generally get married because they meet a woman who they adore and they want to claim her as their own.
Too much emphasis on the utilitarian aspect cheapens the meaning of marriage. Of course I want to be useful but I also want to be a person. I greatly dislike seeing men and women treated in a dehumanizing fashion where their value is reduced to their usefulness.
If my husband could no longer provide for me in the ways he does I would be upset but I wouldn’t leave. I have learned (somewhat through previous mistakes) to be fiercely loyal. Nothing is going to tear my family apart. There is no mistake he can make that will make me file for divorce.
Not everyone considers their spouse disposable.
“Sorta. (re the first sentence), may seem a small difference but I’d say control instead of tame, and I do not like to parse words for fun.
I think the rest of your answer is more accurate.”
~*~*~*~*~*~*~
I solely drew from the title of Dalrock’s article.
@Cane — “We servants ought to be asking The Master what we need to do.”
Ah… no you’re talking *my* “love language.”
Here’s the full women’s list:
1. Affection — [Actually prioritization of this is mostly just a fitness test to justify withholding sex for some other objective that she has. Also… it invests in the narrative that women are not lustful brutes, but rather dainty, sophisticated, and naturally pure. This is more about campaigning for her moral superiority than about really addressing her genuine needs.]
2. Conversation — [Translation: I want my husband to agree with me obsequiously… and listen to me intently when I complain constantly.]
3. Honesty and Openness — [Why? Do married women show any degree of empathy or sympathy or compassion when their husbands “open up” to them?]
4. Financial Commitment — [Really, if she doesn’t wet her panties for you, this is all she’s in it for. And thanks to the laws of the land, she can get this with or without remaining faithful to you!]
5. Family Commitment — [AKA the “honey do” list.]
“The 10 week class dealth with one of those famous needs per week, saving for the last session the mens survey says number one need, sex. ”
~*~*~*~*~*~
Aaaaaahhhh…the churchian way. Put it at the end, just like every marriage book, every other seminar. “Sex is important but it is not the most important thing in marriage.” Which automatically puts it at the bottom of the list.
If the northern states had let their slavery-corrupt brothers go, the North would have been a free country, and I would have been happy to be a part of it.
I am not an apologist of the South, and didn’t play one above. The fact remains that for all intents-and-purposes Lincoln made himself emperor of a new country, by conquest. This new country was no longer stained by the sin of explicit slavery of some men, but formed now by a kinder, gentler implicit slavery of all men.
You appear to be of a mind that there are only two ways to look at a bad situation: the way you like, and the way you don’t. In fact, there are many, and they are almost all bad.
Well, if you were actually being honest when raving about “the evils of conscription” and how it “ruined the republic” then you are most certainly an idiot. But I doubt that.
Far more likely, you are a slippery little sneak. I imagine I could waste quite a bit of time attempting to pin you down as you babble nonsense. Fortunately, I can’t be bothered to.
Asking a woman what she needs, as that “His Needs, Her Needs” survey did, is foolishness.
As they say, “Don’t listen to what they say. Watch what they do.”
I think men generally get married because they meet a woman who they adore and they want to claim her as their own.
———————–
This is indeed the female frame of why men marry.
________________________________________________________
Too much emphasis on the utilitarian aspect cheapens the meaning of marriage. Of course I want to be useful but I also want to be a person
—————————————————–
This makes no sense. The first sentence says “emphasis” which clearly implies more than one thing, the second sentence states mutual exclusivity…..that sneaky “only” again, just more subtle
____________________________________________________________
If my husband could no longer provide for me in the ways he does I would be upset but I wouldn’t leave
—————————
Again the female frame of reference. There has been and need not be any discussion of what you would do if he COULD NOT provide, just as there has been nor need be any discussion (in this thread context) of if she COULD NOT have sex. Its about willful denial.
I will learn html….sorry
Being lectured about utility by a woman is like being lectured about racism from a white nationalist.
Utility is as fundamental to the female view of the male as the oxygen in the air is fundamental to the functioning of the human body. Without it, there is no female view of the male, he is ‘surplus’ and will be consumed and disposed of, and women will take sadistic delight in doing so. After all Its time for revenge right girls? All those millenia of oppression and misogyny, time for revenge against daddy, husband, and brother!
@DH
Dear Non-Christian crazy lady,
So that you understand wholly where everyone on this forum is coming from, I present the following to you.
1 Corinthians 7:2-5.
“But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”
We believe this book was the inspired word of God. His instructions on how we should live our lives. According to this, sex is not something that both parties agree to, but instead something that is expected of both parties. If you are not of the Christian persuasion, good for you. Now go away. The argument is over. We have clear teaching from a source older than you about how our affairs are to be handled and your opinion on the matter doesn’t and can’t change that.
We are realizing as a group that we have let things get out of control in our religious organizations and we are laying the groundwork to deal with it, by first identifying the problem and then making inroads to reverse this trend. No where in history has a government successfully held off the separation of church and state, and liberals have used this separation to have their way with the institution of marriage. We have decided that we are not going to play anymore. We are going to take it back and you don’t have to like it.
As a first step in this endeavor, we intend to give men back the power in a relationship that will at least put them on an equal playing field with the women. We know you don’t agree with this. We know you don’t think it’s as bad as we say it is. But again, we don’t care what you think. Your legal background will not stand up to clear teachings from a source of authority higher than your own. Our intention is that the church that only slows down the progress of our society towards godlessness will instead become an anchor that refuses to let people like you gain an inch.
Sincerely,
The Guy in the back row
Danger @ 6:49 a.m. asks:
So again, I posit the question, by is she allowed to withdraw what he values, yet he is unable to withdraw what she values? Why is she entitled to alimony, half of assets (even if they derived from him) when he is not entitled to “blow-job night” post-divorce?
Sorry I’m a bit late in responding today. Because, again, alimony and half the assets aren’t a quid pro quo for sex. No matter how much you happen to like sex and your ex-wife happens to need money. Wives are not prostitutes.
The idea behind marriage is that you’re a team. Thus, anything acquired during the marriage (including your marriage) is attributed to your joint efforts. Thus, the assets as much HERS as they are yours because of all the tangible and intangible support she provided while you were working.
Alimony is a slightly different matter but it goes back to the idea of a team. When you marry you agree that you will carry each other in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer. This is the quid pro quo. Thus, if you get laid off or depressed and can’t work, she goes out and earns a paycheck. Based on factors such as the length of the marraige, her sacrifice of earning capacity (if any), and her health, age, lack of ability to earn, you may have to pay alimony. That way the housewife of 32 years’ marriage isn’t suddenly starving on the street upon divorce. Courts award less alimony to younger women and women earning their own way (and yes, they do award alimony to men too, though the vast majority of recipients are women). This is a risk of marrying a financially weaker person or benefiting from a deal in which your spouse sacrifices future earning capacity to care for home and children.
Its not so complicated. You either respect your husband as a PERSON or you don’t. You either love your wife as a PERSON or you don’t. Based upon the conversations here it would seem many men do not love their wives as a person just like many women don’t respect their husbands as a person.
This makes for a miserable marriage. Instead of your spouse being a source of moral, spiritual, and psychological strength the utilitarian marriage turns each spouse into entitled narcissists ]who constantly does cost/benefit analysis of whether their wife/husband measures up. Its very adversarial. All human beings need people who are in their corner. The world plays judge and jury. Your spouse should be your defense attorney, not the prosecutor.
@ybm,
You obviously haven’t lived in the south. The blacks down here are some of the most racist people you will ever meet. Fact.
Oh, that is some rich reversal there, Gabriella. Suddenly, the Christian marriage is “utilitarian” and the feminist marriage is “a source of moral, spiritual, and psychological strength.”
Brava!
@Gabriella
“Too much emphasis on the utilitarian aspect cheapens the meaning of marriage. Of course I want to be useful but I also want to be a person. I greatly dislike seeing men and women treated in a dehumanizing fashion where their value is reduced to their usefulness. ”
You are wrong. 100% absolutely and without equivocation. People are utility, positive or negative just like everything else in the world. Life is binary. You can only think this is not true because you are spoiled and pampered and have not ever faced the real world. I am not exaggerating or using hyperbole. Just like most people in developed countries you have more than likely never killed or butchered and animal, never plowed, planted, grown, or harvested food. You have never been shot at or had to kill another human. You have never seen your friends in bloody chunks on the side of the road.
Do a few of those and get back to me on how flowery and wonderful life is. Tell me how much more than utility we are to each other.
When our current western civilization comes to an abrupt stop, your attitude may change.
Not everyone considers their spouse disposable.
I agree, Gabby. I’d say that very few people would consider their spouse disposable. And even though you know my thoughts on this subject (1 Corinthians 7 is a good frame of reference), I think marriage serves a purpose beyond the utilitarian in both partners, according to Ephesians and 1 Peter.
@Gabriella
A utilitarian marriage holds people to account by putting limits on their behavior, thus giving them proper motivation to treat each other like people. Without it, we have what we have today. Marriage of conscience (aka: no real marriage at all).
Joseph says:
August 28, 2012 at 2:59 pm
Don’t quote me to spew racist nonsense. I don;t give a shit what your views on other races are and I won’t reply to them. its has NOTHING to do with MRM.
@Gabriella — To borrow an illustration from “Love and Respect,” it is unbelievably difficult to love someone that has their foot stomped down on your air supply. That’s what withholding sex does– and Christian women are ideologically opposed to giving up that stick. Almost no church would dare tell them to follow 1 Cor 7.
A man enters a marriage to a Christian woman and finds he has a gun held to his head. Then he is criticized for having anger issues. This is not marriage. This is fraud.
Joseph,
Thank you for the verse from Corinthians. I am familiar with it. I’m not sure what I’ve said that is contrary to it (although it’s true that I do not accept the notion that the spouses own each other’s bodies). But in terms of what that means for how spouses should act, I would agree that spouses should not deprive each other except by mutual consent. I don’t think it’s saying that you should have to drop what you’re doing at any moment and have sex upon your spouse’s demand, nor is it saying that husbands should be permitted to force sex on their wives. I think it’s saying that as a matter of proper conduct you should have regular intercourse with your spouse unless you both agree to a period of celibacy.
You’re the one that brought it up.
The poor dears don’t like being looked upon in terms of their utility because beyond their vaginas, they really don’t have much of a utility for a man anymore. They don’t even have looks to fall back on anymore.
The equation is starting to reverse: Men now only see utility in women, this is a profound achievement and I will cheer it on at every opportunity. Generations of men have had nothing to offer women but their ability to slave, work, then die for cupcake and her spawn, I am happy to see the vice-versa starting to take hold.
Joseph says:
August 28, 2012 at 3:03 pm
I’m sorry your delicate sensibilities require an immediate response of ‘black do it too’ when even the mention of the phrase ‘white nationalist’ is invoked. Really your ilk are far too wimpy and thin-skinned. A mere mention is all it takes to get you to come out and whine about false equivalencies.
Feminist Hater (August 28, 2012 at 10:01 am):
Wow, that video gave me the urge to puke.
So even mentioning that I have a real world counter-example to what you said in an entire region of the country is not allowed? I know a lot of feminists who use shaming language much the same as you just did. Double standard much?
@whatever: Have you read Lincoln’s First Inaugural? No? Please do. Then tell the class:
1: Whether Lincoln opposed slavery in any official capacity
2: What Lincoln considered grounds for military invasion
Then please explain how the answer to 2 – which, I’ll help you out some: has nothing whatsoever to do with the Southern slave system in any shape, form, or fashion – was not a direct repudiation of both the principles of 1776 and of the lowercase-f-federalist theory of government.
Thank you, unger. Slavery was always a compromise with our principles. Bringing the states back into the union at the point of the bayonet was an outright repudiation.
Unger, you’re arguing with a sparring dummy: Always ready to fight; never ready for battle.
It’s feminists who see women in terms of utility that doesn’t go beyond their genitalia, not men. For all the shrieking about men seeing us that way, this is pretty embarrassing and juvenile.
I do wish women would shut up about their vaginas. I keep praying someone gatecrashes one of those protests dressed as a giant dick, running toward the vaginas. That would be worth the price of admission.
I should say, vulvae. Those don’t actually appear to have a vaginal canal.
Ha, YBM. Guess what? I happen to agree with the Apostle Paul that unless one’s sexual appetites compel you to marry, then it’s perfectly acceptable to skip marriage and family and devote yourself to serving God and others. I do believe that the one thing you can get from your spouse that you can’t get from any other relationship is sex.
I am also well aware of the utilitarian nature of marriage: that I have duties and responsibilities to my husband that I am to lovingly fulfill no matter how I feel about it, and that he has the same responsibility.
However, it is impossible for a serious Christian to believe that the temporal, utilitarian, and expedient are all that marriage was designed to be:
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body,[d] of His flesh and of His bones.”For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. Ephesians 5
Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. 5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.
7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs together with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. 1 Peter 3
There are other passages that deal with the utilitarian aspects of married life, but clearly, there is something deeper to be gained from it, not the least of which is an understanding of what true commitment and love really are.
@Gabriella
Maybe this appears to be a straw man argument that I am saying I don’t recognize your authority to define whether or not people are binary, or utilitarian, or whatever other word you want to use. It is not. It is vital to the discussion. My assertions is that until you have experience with “less savory” aspects of life you do not have the experience necessary to make a call as to what is and what is not, in relation to human interactions. I would say the same if you had never worked on a car and told me how to fix one, or if you had never worked as a surgeon and told me the best way to perform an operation.
Since most women these days are no good for marriage, I guess their only real uses are as vaginas and worker bees…
*Shrug*
“Life sucks and you are a spoiled brat if you try to make it suck less” makes zero sense.
You don’t know what I have been through and experienced. I am well aware that life is very unpleasant sometimes but that is all the more reason why I am an advocate for fierce loyalty to ones spouse.
I am not going to adopt the most pessimistic views of life and marriage out of some false sense of solidarity with those who suffer more greatly than I do. I actually tried that once and it didn’t do anyone any good.
Gabriella
You are just wrong. You are taking any view except your hyper romanticized one and making it dry, harsh, and extreme, then rebutting it.
Some Guy: I agree that we owe it to our spouses to serve them how they are best served. In the case of men that often means frequent and varied sex. That is how we make marriage good and not duty and drudgery.
But when we are not being served well that doesn’t void the marriage contract. Marriage is more than an exchange of goods. Its our vocation. Our purpose. There is no “get out of marriage free” card.
Feminist Hater says:
August 28, 2012 at 3:28 pm
The women commenting on mens blogs (and they are rapidly increasingly in number over the past 6 months) form probably the most concerning threat to the development of a cohesive ideology save for mrm posters who have daughters.
Women (especially middle class women) are rapidly watching their marriage/resource accumulation prospects vanish. As Dalrock has said, they flocked back into the church, and found the prospects no better. Now they have arrived here, nawalt and bible in hand to try and get the slaves back. Until a cohesive ideology is formed, these women are a distraction, or a threat. The best indication on what a womans REAL aims are when the comment on these blogs is their view on mgtow and expats.
There is no get out free card for men…..
There is no “get out of marriage free” card.
Well, Dalrock has found one. Look at the flip side of the card shown on this post.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/womens-sacred-path-to-marriage/
Women (especially middle class women) are rapidly watching their marriage/resource accumulation prospects vanish. As Dalrock has said, they flocked back into the church, and found the prospects no better. Now they have arrived here, nawalt and bible in hand to try and get the slaves back. Until a cohesive ideology is formed, these women are a distraction, or a threat. The best indication on what a womans REAL aims are when the comment on these blogs is their view on mgtow and expats.
YBM, I have been commenting on Dalrock’s blog for 2 years. I have linked to him, and he has linked to me. I am happily married to a man who has mostly experienced success with women before we married and (with the exception of CS and custody issues) didn’t really get what all the fuss was about here when I first started getting linked to manosohere blogs.
Dalrock has framed this post in terms of Christian marriage, therefore I thought interjecting a Christian perspective into the discussion was an appropriate move.
I have no reason to be particularly invested in getting any “slaves” back. I’m not sure why happily married women who are sympathetic to the plight of their husbands, brothers, and sons in this culture are deemed a threat to the cause, but if and when Dalrock desires me to take my leave, I’ll be happy to do it.
Gabby,
You open yourself up to criticism because you do not know how to express yourself, or your experiences, for others. It’s as if you have the gift of tongues, and there is no one here to translate it. In such cases, we are admonished to keep it to ourselves. There is no shame in that. Even Mary, the best woman ever, treasured up in her heart the best news ever heard in the world, and pondered them in her heart. We don’t have to “get” the excellence you have been blessed to have revealed to you.
It should also be remembered that the Best News came to the world, and to Mary, because she had a vagina, and was willing to surrender herself and it to God.
That is not a joke, and it is not a joke to attach the highest importance to sex in a marriage, and the submission of women and their vaginas to their husbands.
“Elspeth says:
August 28, 2012 at 3:50 pm
I’m not sure why happily married women who are sympathetic to the plight of their husbands, brothers, and sons in this culture are deemed a threat to the cause, but if and when Dalrock desires me to take my leave, I’ll be happy to do it.”
This is illustrative moreso than anything I could have written, thank you for your succinct example of why the UTILITY OF MAN is what matters to the female posters of this blog. Oddly enough I wasn’t even thinking of you when I wrote that post, what can I say I bring out the best in people hahahaha!
That men only exist in the definitions of husband, brother, and son (to the exclusion of all others) shows just how precisely I identified the motivations of the women who have started to show up in the manosphere blogs.
I am overjoyed.
My assertions is that until you have experience with “less savory” aspects of life you do not have the experience necessary to make a call as to what is and what is not, in relation to human interactions.
So if the following applies to you
http://thechive.com/2011/08/29/20-first-world-problems-20-photos/
then maybe you should add a compensation factor to your thinking
Touche, YBM. I will not deny that seeing the devastation that men close to me have suffered was opened my eyes to problems I didn’t realized existed. I have spent nearly my entire adult life as a married housewife and mother of a fairly large family. Yes, I was mostly oblivious.
However, given the frequency of the sentiment expressed here (by numerous commenters on numerous posts) that no woman who is unrelated to a man is worthy of his assistance, I wonder that what I said was revealing of anything so sinister.
Pot, meet kettle, no?
Whatever.
Cane Caldo- To paraphrase: *Pat pat* “That’s cute dear..now go play in your room so the grown-ups can talk.”
I can agree that it is pointless to debate this here but I am stubborn sometimes.
Elspeth,
However, given the frequency of the sentiment expressed here (by numerous commenters on numerous posts) that no woman who is unrelated to a man is worthy of his assistance, I wonder that what I said was revealing of anything so sinister.
Whether right or wrong, this sentiment comes from the experiences of men who have been burned by entitled women for giving any kind of assistance. Conversely, *nice* men receive no assistance from these same women. A double standard to be sure, but there is good reason for it.
Elspeth says:
August 28, 2012 at 4:01 pm
You are welcome to argue against that particular strawman all you like, it is my opinion that men should not help ANY women if he doesn’t desire too, blood or not. Then again, if that happened women might just start to notice that the utility that comes from a man is what keeps her a whole hell of a lot of bad shit happening to her.
Pot calling the kettle black would be an appropriate application if men were to say women are obligated to assist men in need up to and including sacrificing their lives in wars and ‘men and children first’ while also saying they don’t owe women anything in return and infact believe women are quite useless…..
Wait a minute…..
@ybm
You are so right. I know another woman who boasts about having shagged the D.J., having shagged the guy with the muscles, having shagged a man twenty years her junior, and having shagged more or less a whole room of young boys. Really, when you have to tout that as evidence that you are desirable, what can I do but cry – or laugh. The converse would be a guy boasting his desirability because he had, despite endless female attention, remained a virgin.
Promiscuity in women often seems to hide great insecurity or inferority.
Wow, racism, the south, Lincoln and the states…..this thread is like an idiomatic response to a Rorschach Test
empathologicalism says:
August 28, 2012 at 4:14 pm
Sometimes I think certain people, absent a real argument to make, simply post something hoping to derail the thread and claim a victory:
Premise A is discussed
Premise B is established as related to Premise A
Premise A is abandoned.
That is the logic definition of red herring. Women do this ALL the time when they are backed into a rhetorical corner.
By certain people btw I mean doomed harlot.
Definitely.
I would also say this idea is strongly reinforced by the way school and socializing is structured when you’re children. Throughout early parts of life children tend to be grouped exclusively children their own age for many, mostly very practical reasons. Generally speaking, all those children share a variety of developmental experiences and can bond with each other over those shared experiences. In many cases, it’s the exact same group of kids going through their entire K-12 school career. After graduation, especially if you attend college or the military you wind up with many other people your age who also shared very similar experiences in their own high schools.
I think it’s simply taken for granted that everyone in a particular age group should follow a similar life path. (High school, college/military, career, marriage, kids, retirement) Young adulthood is about having fun and taking risks while everyone should settle and marry in their 30s.
That is, of course, the feminine imperative. Men as a group (especially betas) wind up having to make substantial sacrifices for that it be viable.
Women do this ALL the time when they are backed into a rhetorical corner.
——————————————————————————-
Oh Yea but not ALL women do……
Unger wrote:
Dalrock, if you are around, could you fix my messed up blockquote above? Thanks.
Wow, SSM. That was a cautionary tale. I’m glad you guys are on good ground now. My courtship wasn’t a fairy tale either, LOL. I’ll spare the details. One anecdote is enough for one thread. This describes my husband well also:
Sadly, most of the women I know who are married to very strong men married men who were not believers at the time of the marriage, including me. I don’t know what to make of that. Or may be I do.
@ Gabrilella
“Life sucks and you are a spoiled brat if you try to make it suck less” makes zero sense.”
I didn’t say this. Quote me and refute what I said, like I did for you, twice.
You are right, I don’t know what you have done, been through etc… but you made a ridiculous statement,
“Too much emphasis on the utilitarian aspect cheapens the meaning of marriage. Of course I want to be useful but I also want to be a person. I greatly dislike seeing men and women treated in a dehumanizing fashion where their value is reduced to their usefulness. ”
Prove wrong my assertion, life is binary. If you are a Christian you go to heaven or hell. If you are not then there is no right and wrong, there is absolutely not final moral authority, so it reverts to utility. These assertions are bullheadedly true. Deal with truth first before you mis-quote me and argue a point I didn’t make.
> Until a cohesive ideology is formed (ybm)
Just be sure said cohesive ideology includes the inalienable right of a man to say either “Maybe…” or “I don’t feel like it”, and it’s gold w/me.
Martian Bachelor says:
August 28, 2012 at 4:41 pm
I agree with you, and unfortunately a casualty of that battle will be what feminists refer to as ‘patriarchy’ which is premised on the mans obligation to lead. A man being able to say NO, MAYBE or I don’t feel like it is not something the so-called ‘lady mrms’ are prepared to give up, as it still forms part of the feminine privilege.
All ‘lady mrms’ are of the opinion that they want the privileges of female along with the total responsibility put back upon the man, it is utterly reactionary and orthodox. When the moment comes, they will not be on our side. Thus, ‘assets’ they may be at this time, they will never be allies when we start our own long march through the institutions. They too, will be a casualty of the new paradigm.
Ooh, this solves my curiosity about whether ybm is a man or a woman. I guess, based on 4:54 p.m., he’s a man, baby. The hot chick avatar is confusing!
just realized that the first post I keep talking of, it’s the second post, first link, the site mypostingcareer
though amneus’s war on patriarchy is on the same lines.
Reading Gabriela’s comments remind me of reading feminist websites. Regardless of the actual subject matter (no matter how dry, cerebral or non-sex related), the topic eventually centers around sex. When the topic is actually sex-related (even if the topic is as bland as, “Why do we still believe in saving sex for commitment?), it always becomes a series of rants about rape/forcible-coerced sex/submission or rebellion from submission.
Eg. This thread has been centered on the idea that women use involuntary celibacy as a control tactic. Gabriela has brought up “degrading sexual activities”, “the unfairness of insufficient child support for women who get knocked up/leave marriages”, and is now spiraling around the idea of “intramarital rape” (three topics that have little to do with the main idea of this post: men would be happier in marriage if they had more sex with their wives.)
Her fixation on those topics reeks of projection and secret desire. Its unnerving.
You are confusing me with someone else. I think several commenters must be blurring together for you because I didn’t mention rape or CS and I have not talked about degrading sexual activities anytime recently.
ybm,
“All ‘lady mrms’ are of the opinion that they want the privileges of female along with the total responsibility put back upon the man, it is utterly reactionary and orthodox.”
– This is what I fear most. And women always get their way. What will form is some sort of bastardized patriarchy where men have all the responsibilities but women still retain some of the privileges of feminism such as divorce theft. Pussy whipped or pussy starved American men would be only too eager to accommodate their female masters.
I keep praying someone gatecrashes one of those protests dressed as a giant dick, running toward the vaginas.
So if a P falls on a V in the woods, would it be rape?
Entropy is my god- I am not really following you. You seem to be saying that I should nto have a romanticized view of life because life is cruel. Now you are saying for me to prove…what? That life isn’t cruel?
Maybe I just need to clarify my point of view. I am to use an analogy. Lets say human beings are like patients in a hospital all suffering from various diseases and illnesses. Some people are lepers, some people have kidney stones, others just have a broken finger. Some of these patients are more useful than others..depending on the severity of their illness. Some will make a full recovery while others will just get worse and die. The Good doctors treats everybody..the sick and getting sicker..the invalids who are of no use to anyone..as well as the people who will make a full recovery.
The utilitarian view is the help the people who will make a full recovery and to hell with everyone else. Nobody is without any metaphorical illness..we all have sins and personality flaws and baggage from our past that influences our present. When we are CHOOSING our spouse their utility to us should be relevant, but once we are married we are in for good. Even if they become an invalid and are no longer of any use to us at all. We pray for their recovery but we don’t cast them away.
That is how I understand Corinthians 13.
“4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.”
If that’s not romantic then I don’t know what the hell is.
Nas says:
August 28, 2012 at 5:27 pm
We already have that system, as you can see it is unsustainable. We are in the middle of the ‘man up 2.0’ right now. If that trend continues unabated the end result will be demographic collapse and a decline in living standards to those found in Brazil. A small (5% at most) outrageously right population and a great slum of poor ‘choice mothers’ living in fear of REAL rape and violence.
The book ‘world of slums’ is a good introduction.
This is all good and dandy, as long as the law upholds it. As soon as there is a legal loophole, you have problems, which is what society is current facing. Not only is there the actual legal loophole of ‘no fault’ divorce but the idea of ‘female empowerment’ through divorce that is parroted around by media and movie entertainment. That, right there, is the ENTIRE reason a blog like this exists. To highlight the massive scale of frivolous divorce and the damage caused by female empowerment, to the detriment of men and family. If you have not cottoned onto this yet, I highly suspect your actual sincerity…
If that’s not romantic then I don’t know what the hell is.
Ahhh, shopping for religion.
I’ll take this one and this one, but not that one or that one.
When this blog points out the problems I generally agree. When commenters try and prescribe a solution that contradicts scripture I disagree. And it isn’t even because I think I can change anyone’s mind but because I think the thousands and thousands of lurkers might benefit to see an alternative point of view represented.
Whether its male or female, when a relationship problem is presented and the proposed solution is “dump the bitch/asshole” I have to chime in with my disagreement.
ybm,
“We already have that system, as you can see it is unsustainable. We are in the middle of the ‘man up 2.0′ right now. If that trend continues unabated the end result will be demographic collapse and a decline in living standards to those found in Brazil. A small (5% at most) outrageously right population and a great slum of poor ‘choice mothers’ living in fear of REAL rape and violence.
The book ‘world of slums’ is a good introduction.”
– What system are you referring to? I like the present system just fine. I have mentioned before that I am glad for feminism. I don’t get to be a social outcast for not slaving myself for a woman. I realize that eventually women will once again put the burden on men and re institute patriarchy but hopefully that’s way out in the future and most men of my generation will get to live as free men. Also, I don’t think this will come about because men will en masse refuse to marry and suddenly decide to grow a spine but rather because it is American women themselves that have chosen this. You too have spoken in favor of this “brave new world”. So come on now, are you going soft on me? Hahaha
– I tried looking for the book you recommended in amazon and perhaps you meant “Planet of slums” by Mike Davis. Looks interesting, thanks.
That is not romantic. You don’t know what the hell is. Love can be expressed romantically, but love is not romance. I can romance without love, too.
You must be using the word romance differently than I am.
The definition I am using: “imbued with or dominated by idealism,”
CL says:
August 28, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Much of life is utilitarian.”
Excellent.
Nas says:
August 28, 2012 at 6:20 pm
That is the correct book thanks for correcting me.
In the last couple weeks I have seen a number of studies, reports etc. that there is a growing awareness that the 20th century is over, and above all the prosperity of the late 20th century is over. People are beginning to see that the ongoing economic crunch is the new normal, and despite what american presidental hopefuls say, the anglo-american empire is in terminal decline. The standard of living that anglo women have grown accustomed to in large part depend on the state funded by an increasingly small number of beta males, or their parents whose inheritance they will squander quickly, or their husbands who are also increasingly small in number.
This has not occurred in a vacuum, the sudden appearance of huge amounts of women in the manosphere (including the establishment of the ridiculous ‘ladymra’ subreddit website), the man-up nonsense from reactionaries and feminists alike. It is the deep foreboding made manifest that the good times for the white anglo woman are drawing to a close, the orthodoxy is attempting as we speak to maintain the status quo, it is not working.
I am in favour of the new system of the liberated man, but above all I want to make it an entrenched ideology, durable and immune from infiltrators. I might sound soft on the odd occasion NAS but my eyes are still on the prize.
I seem to be missing where Gabriella went wrong, at least in the past few posts, wherein it seemed to me pretty clear that she was saying that people – very much including women – have a duty, whether they recognize it or uphold it or not, to remain loyal to their spouses in spite of their inevitable failings. The correct response, as far as I can tell, should be ‘absolutely right – now remember that and do that and try to convince your sisters of this ‘no excuses’ stand as well, before it’s too late.’
…as for romance, I suspect she was talking about the charm of ‘you and me against all odds’ – of staying together so even through the worst of times. Which counts as romantic.
(second definition, specifically.)
My last one is stuck in moderation because I used the wrong log-in.
You must be using the word romance differently than I am.
The definition I am using: “imbued with or dominated by idealism,”
Lad,
“Young adulthood is about having fun and taking risks while everyone should settle and marry in their 30s.
That is, of course, the feminine imperative. Men as a group (especially betas) wind up having to make substantial sacrifices for that it be viable.”
No, the biggest sacrifice made in following that life script is made by the woman who squanders the height of her SMV* (18-25) without cashing it in on the MMP**. As that message gets out, things will somewhat self-correct. The problems that led to the ignorance in the first place will still be with us.
* – sexual market value
** – marriage marketplace
Unger, you could be right.
Gabby, I did take “romantic” in the vulgar sense.
As I said above, Gabby’s problem is not that she’s wrong (who knows?)–it’s that it’s hard for many to understand. Case in point: romantic. I think it’s perfectly reasonable, when discussing sex and sexual relations to interpret “romantic” in the vulgar, unless the speaker takes the pains to indicate in which sense they meant it.
“The definition I am using: ‘imbued with or dominated by idealism,””
The word romance once referred to the tendency of the medieval mind to idealize the Golden Age of Ancient Rome.
But again, OUR tendency to abandon the real in pursuit of the ideal surfaces here. One can make sure one’s marriage is mutually beneficial while still striving for something more. The New Testament doesn’t cancel the Old, it fulfills and extends it.
USA. 100% custody to mother scenarios. No variation in father’s income. 25%/40% support formula. SS taxes and EIC accounted for; standard deductions. Not accounted for: state income taxes, child care expense credit, social services programs, and health care or other support provided by noncustodial father.
father / marriage / mother with custody
Scenario 1 child
gross income 30k / 55k / 25k
after taxes and transfers 17,589 / 47,884 / 32,476
Scenario 2 children
gross income 30k / 55k / 25k
after taxes and transfers 13,089 / 49,454 / 39,952
Urban scenario 1 child
gross income 80k / 160k / 80k
after taxes and transfers 40,186 / 122,335 / 84,181
Urban scenario 2 children
gross income 80k / 160k / 80k
after taxes and transfers 28,186 / 124,285 / 98,131
No, the biggest sacrifice made in following that life script is made by the woman who squanders the height of her SMV* (18-25) without cashing it in on the MMP**.
This is at the crux of so many issues. I think the manosphere should explore it more. For example, how can women so thoroughly read the situation incorrectly? And what could be done to fix it? Because of this stupidity, everybody loses (except cats)
by ‘second definition’, I meant unrealistic, fanciful, etc., in the eyes of the world – which is what advises people in such cases to ‘look out for number one’, not to stay together’. But third works too, yes.
O man, Ex-Senator Rick Santorum just called single mothers “heroic” at the GOP convention. Right out of the Glenn Stanton playbook.
farm boy,
“This is at the crux of so many issues. I think the manosphere should explore it more. For example, how can women so thoroughly read the situation incorrectly? And what could be done to fix it? Because of this stupidity, everybody loses (except cats)”
The old rule is never to attribute to malice what can easily be explained by stupidity, and I think that may be wise even if malice (on the part of third parties, largely) may be closer to the truth. It is easier to admit acting stupidly than maliciously, and if the first priority is getting the behavior straightened out, and it is, that should be the overriding consideration.
“O man, Ex-Senator Rick Santorum just called single mothers “heroic” at the GOP convention. Right out of the Glenn Stanton playbook.”
Good. Santorum is the poster-boy for “creepiness”. Lot worse things than single-motherhood coming to feel creepy.
@Desiderius
As Lenin asked, “What is to be done”?
Desiderius (writes)
“No, the biggest sacrifice made in following that life script is made by the woman who squanders the height of her SMV* (18-25) without cashing it in on the MMP**. As that message gets out, things will somewhat self-correct. The problems that led to the ignorance in the first place will still be with us.”
Slyvia Ann Hewlett started to address some of these problems in her book “The Baby Bust”. I believe it needs to be upper class woman & their problems becoming grave in order for the establishment to recognize their errors.
However it is first met with extreme denial and feminist/marxist re-writing of history & fact. If you Google her book you will find that it has been met with a matra that its a “myth” ..””every thing is fine, nothing to see here… just maintain your old behavior…nothing to worry about!!””
The mass media gave it a once over & downplayed its thesis as much as possible. Much like the “boys on the side article”..and ignored or downplayed sexual liceance and feminism’s responsibility in it.
This is feminists prefered approach… Rosin is coming out with a book about the decline of males and the rise of woman… it is being hyped… I think this is feminists next approach to the problems they have created..
It is imperative that they control the narative and “get out ahead” of the problems they created so they can portray them in ways that mislead the audience and thwart attempts at really addressing them…
Its a scary phase were propaganda will be the prefered weapon.. Grain shortages…the problem is counter revolutionaries… production shortages…counter revolutionaries….not enough coal this winter…counter revolutionaries….no medicine at the hospital….counter revolutionaries…
@CL
With respect to these things,
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tampa-republican-conventions-code-pink-vagina-protesters-365541
If a bad boy on a Harley drives by, will they get über tingles all over their body? Will it cause a heart attack?
@Gabriella — “Whether its male or female, when a relationship problem is presented and the proposed solution is ‘dump the bitch/asshole’ I have to chime in with my disagreement.”
I stated that it was fraud for a man to get married and then have to deal with a sexless relationship. I bemoaned the failure of the church to teach 1 Cor 7 even when it fit the context of a lesson. I never threatened divorce and no one else suggested it. And you single handedly derailed the tread with your off the wall reaction.
Congratulations. What could have been an interesting discussion is now all about you.
@Opus “Promiscuity in women often seems to hide great insecurity or inferority” & “Promiscuous women really do assume that because they can sleep with men, effortlessly, that all men are doing likewise – and thus a high partner count in a woman is not in any way off-putting to a man.”
I have also found this to be true on both counts. Women are quite shocked, insulted, and dont handle rejection well – they become downright nasty and insulting.
My goal in life is to make it through life with the least amount of intimate partners not the most (quality vs. quantity and simply opportunity cost).
It depends on what one is looking for and what is the desired outcome. Why waste time with the high nth ? She will not be a good partner, wife, or mother.
If one is looking to strictly satisfy a glandular urge and one never wishes to get married / kids route – then have at it and “hit it”.
One cant have it both ways.
To think one can lead a promiscuous lifestyle and then settle down and get married. It simply won’t work – there is a appetite and a acquired taste that is universal for both sexes.
The last thing I want is a promiscuous partner – it is a major turn off – I’m not big into sloppy n’ths. Accompanied with a promiscuity is a major emotional, mental, family, sexual, and a major slew of deal-breaker hangups. I simply dont want to be deal with – the opposite sex is irrational enough. Some men would simply rather remain single rather than be forced to choose a feminized American woman.
LOL farm boy… That would be funny. I’m reminded of that Simpsons episode with the Duff beer ad when Homer was trying to quit drinking. There was a bunch of feminists chanting “down with sexism!” and then some guys sprayed Duff beer over them and they turned into a bunch of bikini clad tarts. Perhaps a similar thing could happen at a Code Pink spectacle.
“The last thing I want is a promiscuous partner – it is a major turn off – I’m not big into sloppy n’ths. Accompanied with a promiscuity is a major emotional, mental, family, sexual, and a major slew of deal-breaker hangups. I simply dont want to be deal with – the opposite sex is irrational enough. Some men would simply rather remain single rather than be forced to choose a feminized American woman.”
Uh, we’d prefer a feminized one, its the masculinized ones that are the problem. Now, at least. I was gender-bent too in younger days. I bailed on women for not being ambitious enough. A lot of us contributed to the problems, and for me at least, I don’t see any way out other than confession and repentance and trusting God to renew us together.
“Slyvia Ann Hewlett started to address some of these problems in her book “The Baby Bust”. I believe it needs to be upper class woman & their problems becoming grave in order for the establishment to recognize their errors.”
Yeah, the problems in the SMP start at the top and filter down, but that doesn’t mean that the solutions can’t come from the middle and clue the top in once they realize they’re falling behind – nothing the top fears more than that. From my experience with teens, I’d say a lot of these things are already on the way to self-correcting, and the reactionary (literally, they react to what they can no longer deny) parts of society – the media, academia, government – will be forced to adapt.
@CL
Actually, someone referenced in this video might “fit” in well.
“the first priority is getting the behavior straightened out”
To be clear, and I can imagine that if a Susan Walsh (and I absolutely love Susan and what she is working to accomplish, and if y’all have a problem with that, you can kiss my hairy ass) type were reading this, she’d jump up and say “You’re trying to control women’s behavior!”, I’d say:
Their behavior is already being controlled, and in a way that is destructive to men, children, and ultimately the women themselves. I’m cool with a flexible norm that makes room for the Marie Curies and Susan Walshs of the world to set the world on its ear. But making them the norm is causing a lot of heartache to the women who primarily seek to fulfill their traditional role of being the leaders in the moral sphere, of forming the character of the next generation, of supporting the men who looked so formidable when the feminists set out to best them.
Yeah, well, we’re not so formidable without good women behind us. Your (great?) grandmothers already knew that. Maybe they knew some other useful things too.
@Desiderius “confession and repentance and trusting God to renew us together.”
Simple question – who is coming on strong for “repentance” ???
It certainly isn’t mainstream evangelical American grace-loving “crossless / discipleless Christians who are waiting to be “raptured” so they can escape tribulation since they have taken the four steps of salvation.
Quite the opposite is coming from the pulpit – men are told to “man up” and take on venal strumphets.
So if no one is telling the truth about repentance then how can one be brought back and renewed ?
“So if no one is telling the truth about repentance then how can one be brought back and renewed ?”
Catwoman yearned above all for a clean slate. Only one way to that. Churchill was very unpopular in the 30’s, then when the need was recognized, he was embraced. Preachers of repentance are out there, we’ve just been shunned, the need not being felt.
When it is, we’ll be there.
Meanwhile the liberals are going berserk over the bible’s command of wifely submission:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/men-and-women-are-different-and-so-should-be-their-marriage-vows-20120828-24yo6.html
900+ comments and counting
Allow me to point out a heck of a whole lot of bible history. Beside there being lots and lots of stories of one person being right and the majority being wrong.
Preachers of repentance have a very strong tract record of getting themselves, stoned, killed, beheaded, crucified, sawn in two when the populations is immoral.
Though the illustration of Churchill is a a nice anecdote – it is out of context and since England during that time was a moral Christian nation compared to now.
Consider the holocaust of the Jews conducted by the Germans which was the birthplace of the Reformation – this is a great example of a immoral nation.
Most Christians have “compartmentalized thinking” when it comes to “repentance”.
Exactly what does “repentance” mean so one can be “renewed” ?
I’m not convinced this is the case, but even if it is, I see no reason to believe that women would choose to relegate each other back into the house; under the authority of fathers until marriage. That’s what we’re talking about. Short of widespread violence forcing women strongly encouraging women to make this choice, I don’t see that happening. And I’m not one for wishing that.
Another thing: The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, you say. What cradle?
Btw one more – if “I’d say a lot of these things are already on the way to self-correcting, and the reactionary (literally, they react to what they can no longer deny) parts of society – the media, academia, government – will be forced to adapt…. parts of society – the media, academia, government – will be forced to adapt.”
Sounds good on paper and logical but human nature is hardly logical when women come into power and society becomes immoral. This has happened before and this is not the first time.
Are there any examples in history of “self correcting” or forced adaptation occurred ? Nineva is one of the only examples to my knowledge of repentance ( and it was by a very reluctant preacher).
Are there any other examples of “self correction” in history ? Did Rome self correct ? What did Christians affect Rome ? With their blood and unwillingness to compromise.
That doesnt sound much like the typical American Christian who is practicing for the rapture by jumping up / down next to their pew to avoid tribulation.
People have a tendency not to change unless there a foot on their throat constricting their air supply however there are some who still refuse to repent – there are plenty examples of ignoring repentance from Noah to the book of the book of Revelation despite righteous preachers ( ie Noah and to the prove point Christ referred to Noah).
Regardless, the “ecclesia” was refined during this process of persecution and was in the hight of power – quite paradoxical.
Allow me to suggest the scriptures show things / people dont change.
I predict that the Man Up Campaign will gradually worm its way into the presidential campaign – that is, the candidates will insert it into their message, although covertly.
Some Guy: Dalrock comment threads tend to go in multiple directions and people carry on several conversations in one thread.
@Michael Singer at 10.35pm
There does indeed seem to be some inverse rule that promiscuity (in both men and women – but it is far more damaging in a woman) is a sure sign of the likelihood of relationship instability. This is particularily sad when one can see otherwise fine and rare qualities in the woman concerned. Promiscuity and lack of impulse control go together. Promiscuity is a tap [fawcet] that cannot easily be switched off.
Rejection, as you say, is something women are not used to – and thus seems to be doubly humiliating to them – which reminds me of the two weeks I once spent with some half-dozen others in a villa near St Tropez. Amongst us vacationers were a heroic single mum and her six year old Brat. On the last evening I stayed up late, talking with the single mum in the living room – the doors open on the warmest of nights; the sound of crickets chirping; the pool glistening in the moonlight – the most romantic of settings. The next morning I had somehow metamorphosed into someone persona non grata. Only later did I realise that just having stayed up late, alone and talking to me, was her sign of sexual availability – but I did not find her physically or personally attractive – and so if I had any inkling of her wishes – and I don’t think I did – I chose to fail to see them. It is inconceivable that had our desires been reversed, that (whatever my then disappointment) I would have reacted in the like manner.
Man Up is already in the campaigns. I heard Just the other day Ann Romney telling an audience all the things Mitt has done FOR women…..its madness, its a demographic with huge influence, no coherent rational set of needs for anything remotely resembling true so called greater good, and less than zero accountability.
It is the most harmful demographic we have. Since suffrage, always has been, always will. One vote per homestead put men in a mitigating position, yet imagine today the irony, never happen but if suddenly we reverted to one vote per family, the policies would swing even more wildly towards pandering to women because in the main there is little in this country and is not controlled by women. This is not to say every single woman, let me get my NAWALT disclaimer in….but well more than enough run their roosts that the white knight demographic would be worse. It already is, its just not overt as it would be if the voting were done by household.
Everywhere we turn in life, unless we are sequestered somehow, we smack the wall of ignorance that is man bad woman good.
Like him and his politics or not….thats not the issue, but Gov Christie made a great point saying we have focused too much on love and too little on respect. I suspect he is a man up dude like the rest, but he blundered into a profound truth like the broken clock twice per day.
Before someone cites a biblical admonishment about love realize that Im taking his words in a manner that doesnt conflict with the call to love others at all. Misunderstanding that is what gets everything all screwed up from the foundations of marriage per Eph 5, to the toothpick and log, to the judge not lest ye…..and on and on. Its all twisted , and his words conveyed truth even if he didnt mean to the way that it did.
@CL
I wonder how large their tampon bill is….
Pandering to women make the Republicans look like betas. OTOH, the dems total suck up make them omegas. Is there an Alpha in the house?
(@Harlot
“Sorry I’m a bit late in responding today. Because, again, alimony and half the assets aren’t a quid pro quo for sex. No matter how much you happen to like sex and your ex-wife happens to need money. Wives are not prostitutes. ”
They do not have to be quid pro quo. It does not change the nature of my question.
Wives may not be prostitutes, but my questions (listed again below in parantheses) points out that husbands are slaves, even post divorce. So why are women allowed to withdraw sex, but men are not allowed to withdraw their labor or efforts?
The standard answer is “it’s her body and she can say no”. But, his body still belongs to her in that he must perform physical labor for her benefit?
So again, I posit the question, by is she allowed to withdraw what he values, yet he is unable to withdraw what she values? Why is she entitled to alimony, half of assets (even if they derived from him) when he is not entitled to “blow-job night” post-divorce?)
It is inconceivable that had our desires been reversed, that (whatever my then disappointment) I would have reacted in the like manner.
Men are expected to act in a chivalrous manner, the females, not so much. But then, here in the states, the law is on their side, so they can do whatever they want. Makes you wonder why guys bother
@Nas
Can’t you get companionship from other men? People you meet from hobbies or from your work for example?
I’m trying. I’m trying. But I have a very demanding (and well-paid) job. I’m trying to get a more relaxing job so I have time to devote to hobbies, meeting new people, etc.
And surely there are other ways to find female companionship besides marriage?
Of course, there are. In the country I live, there are no shortage of women wanting to be with a man like me.
Is the problem of companionship in old age only a problem for men or for women (natural social creatures) too?
It’s worse in men. I hate to say that and I know that there is this cliche in the manosphere about the crazy cat lady, etc. etc
The fact is women are more sociable creatures so they are able to get companionship from friends, family, co-workers, acquaintances, etc. A man is only allowed to express his emotional self with a woman. For example, women talk about emotions, men talk about things (politics, sports and work).
You see this in breakups. A woman who has been dumped is comforted by everybody. She can express her grief with friends, family, co-workers, etc. A man who has been dumped has to tough it up and move on. All his feelings of grief have to be bottled up. Nobody cares, even if his own family, even if his own friends.
Without an emotional outlet, loneliness for men is worse than for women. Of course, women whine and whine and write articles so it appears to be the opposite.
I suppose things are different for your generation and for the country you live in. Everyone just got married like you say. But I think there would be a LOT of single people for my generation. I think a man without the responsibility and burden of supporting a family would have a lot of free time and resources to pursue all sorts of interests and entertainment opportunities. But I do wish I knew what it is like living at that age.
I can only speak for myself. Living is not bad. You have become accustomed to being single. You do whatever you want whenever you want. You have female companionship. Everybody sees you as a middle age man but you feel young at heart. I keep fit and comfortable with myself.
There is a void, though. Is this everything? What will be happen in my old age? I am screwing it up by giving up marriage and kids? In my country, everybody is married and raising kids so the sensation of being wrong is more evident.
I don’t really trust most old people from this country. They together with women seem to conspire to do what is in the worst interest of young men. So it is very difficult to talk frankly about these issues and have my many questions answered. But I greatly respect your opinion and thank you for sharing your experiences and wisdom.
Thank you, Nas. I really appreciate your words of encouragement and if some of my words are useful to you, I am really happy. I would like for you to learn from older men’s experiences like mine so you don’t make mistakes. Being a young man in Western society is a risky business and nobody is on your side.
@farm boy
“Makes you wonder why guys bother”
This is my problem. I am dating a girl who is an excellent christian and very devout, but I seriously am considering walking away from the relationship. She hasn’t done anything wrong, but I just cannot rectify the risk in my head. It would be great to have a family, but why should I bother if all the responsibility for leading a family with christian values is on my shoulders and none of the authority to do it is.
I found the first part of the story from Barbara Rainy, I’d over looked it. It shows the build up to the best moment in her life, when her husband said its cool if they never have sex again because he loves her for more than (spoken with spittle) THAAAAT!
Here is an excerpt
—————————————————————-
While the setting was close to perfect, the two people were not. And we were about to find out how different our needs were.
Dennis began lighting some candles. He was making assumptions that seemed logical to him. There were no children to interrupt us . . . the room was warm and quiet . . . it was the perfect time for love.
I also had some assumptions. Even though we’d had a relaxing day, we hadn’t had much time alone for the two of us to just talk. Since my health scare and pregnancy, I had become fearful, timid, confused and introspective. I hardly knew what I was feeling or how to express it.
So on this perfect night in this perfect location, what I needed was not what my husband needed. I wasn’t opposed to making love eventually, but first I needed him to help me sort through what I was feeling and reassure me that everything would be okay in my life.
How did we resolve our differing needs?
I’ll finish my story tomorrow!
Discuss
Can you relate to the story I’ve just told? What do you do when one of you is “in the mood” and the other is not?
Pray
Ask God to give each of you a discerning spirit so that you can know how to meet each other’s needs regarding sex and intimacy.
————————————————————————-
I know Im a meany for saying this, but I do not nor have I ever had a flipping clue what it mens when people say these pop psychology derived things like “”I needed him to help me sort through what I was feeling and reassure me that everything would be okay in my life.””
I dont get it, I dont get “find myself”, “know who you are” and a host of other things similar.
This does not mean that I am literally clueless to whats being said. Nor does it mean I think all things ought to be clinical , sterile and straightforward. But I will never be convinced that these are not mostly used as tools of manipulation, even if inadvertently.
So one achieves that feeling that “everything will be ok with her life”. Will that need to be done again tomorrow, or the next time? Is it a burden that a man can carry for another person? Is it seeking security from the wrong place? Is it setting up a reward for pandering a maelstrom of emotion that is always a hair away from manifesting into a Category 5? See this is essentially what the couple at the His Needs Her Needs seminar modeled. No matter what the details were, the model is consistent. Some kind of major tectonic alignment must occur for her to “give herself” and anything, ANYTHING, can jigger them out of skew and ruin it.
At the end they pose the discussion questions. What to do when moods do not align?
Why ask? She already answered.
@Joseph – I would seriously avoid marriage in America & American women- sense of shame and morality & justice has been removed.
@joeseph
If you develop “game elements”, the moral aspects of game, you might do fine. You would have to be the judge as to whether that will work in this case. Seems to me the only way to keep the law at bay in this day and age.
DH: Why would any woman want to get married if it means her husband has the legal right to force her to have sex against her will and physically coerce her to do what he wants? I like men plenty but I don’t like ‘em that much.
You misunderstand profoundly. In the old order of things, consent to marriage was understood to be an open-ended sexual consent. You said one “Yes”, at the altar, and that settled it for life. She did not have to be “forced” into sex because she understood she was expected to put out whenever he wanted. But nobody was forced to marry — any woman who did not wish to have a husband pawing at her for the rest of her life, was perfectly free to remain single.
Our grandmothers didn’t seem to mind.
@empathologicalism —
What I’d like to see in a seminar like that is a woman stand up and say, “Sex is not a reward or a punishment. Sex is not a tool that I use to keep my husband under my control. I once behaved this way and I now see it as being a sinful thing that destroyed our intimacy and undermined our relationship. I have repented of this… and now… as far as possible… my answer is yes to any and all of my husband’s sexual requests. This has been far from burdensome. In fact our life is together is so joyful since making that change, I am ashamed that I wasted so many years before this treating my husband like a dog… banishing him to the couch whenever he displeased me. Now I understand just how brazenly disrespectful that was. Please pray for me that I might never fall into that hateful mode of living ever again….”
Hey Joseph, you’ve come to the right blog to find out, that’s for sure.
Here’s a starting point. Ask her how she ‘feels’ about such things as the high divorce rate, sex in marriage, reasons for divorce, leadership in marriage, rearing of children, career, family, etc… you can ask whatever else is important to you.
If she’s young and a devout Christian, the time to ask these things would be now. If you’re serious about her, talk to her parents too.
These posts by Dalrock should help as well.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/07/09/interviewing-a-perspective-wife-part-i-should-you-open-a-position/
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/07/10/interviewing-a-prospective-wife-part-ii/
@ farm boy – “Pandering to women make the Republicans look like betas. OTOH, the dems total suck up make them omegas. Is there an Alpha in the house?”
Monarchists, perhaps?
The point to asking all these questions above, is to determine where she stands on issues relating to your responsibility for leading her and your future family, if you decide to have one, and how she will maintain her submissiveness in such a marriage setting; which then allows you to wield the authority needed to lead correctly and garner respect from her and your children.
FH for president!
I swear, my birth certificate is here somewhere… just gimme a minute, will ya?
Some Guy
I used to try to argue with the Christian women who called sex icing on the cake, I’d tell them no, sex is a coequal thing, sex should simple BE in marriage, as Rooinek said it was settled at I DO.
Christian women and white knights have been trained to see things or hear things that are not there. For example, when I say that sex should just be, they read/hear a man should get sex on tap, spicy sex on tap, anytime anywhere he wants it no matter what. That is far easier to sanctimoniously oppose, so that is the Christian frame of today. Imagine truly believing that about anything, imagine how you would react when the thing in question was mentioned, defensively, derisively. Its all packaged and filed and sits comfortably that way. And…..its all jacked up wrong.
FH: Still you’re not marrying a woman, but a culture. A woman has to have a very impressive counter culture track record to approach being a kind of safe bet in our current culture.
1 Cor 7: 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband [but only after he’s jumped through enough hoops to show that he is in submission to her… and even then, only after he helps his wife sort through whatever she is feeling… but of course if she can claim that she’s either not in the mood or not in love with him, then she gets a pass on this and everything is his fault.]
Sure lavazza, I’m still not going to tell him outright to dump her, just because of the culture that American men and women find themselves in. If I put myself in his position, with a young, Christian girl, who is actually devout; I wouldn’t just throw it away either. He has a tough choice to make and the best starting point to begin making that choice would be to ask her to be honest with him about her view of their future together.
Christian wives: Do the Lord’s work: Put the satanic porn industry out of business! Here’s how: Cut carbs, hit the gym, dress like you’re still dating, and have LOTS of SEX with your husband!
@van Rooinek
And be his fantasy! Help a man to heaven with your cuckoo’s nest…
Some Guy
Look here, its laid out in this blog entry I found
http://respectedhusband.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/for-the-husbands-why-does-my-wife-try-to-make-me-pray-with-her/#comment-170
I took it to task in the comments but I rambled a bit and had a chip on my shoulder because this crap irritates me so much.
Joseph,
“This is my problem. I am dating a girl who is an excellent christian and very devout, but I seriously am considering walking away from the relationship. She hasn’t done anything wrong, but I just cannot rectify the risk in my head. It would be great to have a family, but why should I bother if all the responsibility for leading a family with christian values is on my shoulders and none of the authority to do it is.”
If you walk away without cause you will be contributing to the problem, not helping to solve it. Many women in the past have done what you propose to do here due to the doubt caused in their mind by feminist propaganda. For you to do likewise would not be manly.
FH: He has to look both back on her track record, perhaps by interviewing her father about her attitude to male authority, and forward (on the situation they will be living in etc.). And take a hard look on his own ability (Marriage Game) to form a woman’s mind to stop her from falling into the culture’s pit falls.
“If you walk away without cause you will be contributing to the problem, not helping to solve it. Many women in the past have done what you propose to do here due to the doubt caused in their mind by feminist propaganda. For you to do likewise would not be manly.”
“A man’s got to know his limitations.” No shame in acknowledging that you don’t have what it takes to make counter culture happen in your immediate vicinities. Even non wordly sages are advised by the ancient texts to move to safe settings with good opportunities for alms.
Thank you, Desiderius and Feminist Hater, for injecting some sanity and a balance by not telling this young man to just dump this young woman who, for all we know and we know nothing about her, may be an excellent prospective wife and mother.
Figure out your principles and then live your life with fierce devotion to those principles. Don’t do anything because you are afraid of the results. Whether its getting married or going your own way…make a choice and stand by it regardless of the personal cost. That is what it means to be a strong man/woman.
Michael,
“Allow me to point out a heck of a whole lot of bible history. Beside there being lots and lots of stories of one person being right and the majority being wrong.
Preachers of repentance have a very strong tract record of getting themselves, stoned, killed, beheaded, crucified, sawn in two when the populations is immoral.”
Our culture tends to be more passive-aggressive, and to be fair, I don’t believe we’ve reached that level of immorality and are unlikely to do so, but the price has been steep nonetheless, and not one that I’ve paid alone.
“Though the illustration of Churchill is a a nice anecdote – it is out of context and since England during that time was a moral Christian nation compared to now.”
Interesting time for you to switch to grading on a curve. They were not a moral nation in the 30’s. There are sins of omission as well as commission, often accompanied by pretty lies.
This was not a terminal condition, and need not be for us either. Things were different in the 40’s.
“Consider the holocaust of the Jews conducted by the Germans which was the birthplace of the Reformation – this is a great example of a immoral nation.”
As was the willful blindness to what was going on on the part of those who could have done something about it in other nations. They were too busy chasing their ideal of a world without war to notice the real world still in their midst. The primal will assert itself until bested – our ignorance is its bliss, in sex every bit as much as in war.
“Exactly what does “repentance” mean so one can be “renewed” ?”
I don’t think its that controversial, Pontius.
I disagree. If he’s unwilling to commit, then we need to know what the reasons are.
1) He doesn’t love her. Don’t marry someone you’re not in love with.
2) She’s not a good catch, or has displayed some warning signs. Don’t marry a known problem.
3) He’s chicken. Marriage is no place for chickenry; especially in this moral and legal climate. The danger and damage is real, for both of them.
We’d all like to see another success story, but I’m not sure that’s what we’re looking at.
lav,
“‘A man’s got to know his limitations.’ No shame in acknowledging that you don’t have what it takes to make counter culture happen in your immediate vicinities. Even non wordly sages are advised by the ancient texts to move to safe settings with good opportunities for alms.”
We are more than conquerors through Christ who loved us – have been for 2,000 years. I think we can manage a few healthy marriages. I know of several in my community, including some Joseph’s age. Our host has one himself.
Joseph says:
August 29, 2012 at 9:17 am
The problem of course, is that people lie on the internet. I was recently a groomsman in my oldest brothers wedding (lol don’t get me started on having to read a speech at a wedding with my views on women and marriage). I had never met his wife before and he had said much about how good of a Catholic she is and so on and so on.
By the end of the night I had the bride on the patio of the yacht club, cigar in mouth, double fisting vodka orange juice. Some ‘devout’ girl she turned out to be.
Treat carefully Joseph, make sure you aren’t lying to yourself about how devout and/or high quality she is, as men have a tendency to accept a whole lot of failed females to get at her piss flaps. You should be coming from a default position of ‘no marriage, no cohabitation’ until she PROVES herself in ALL the ways you want her to.
One failure and marriage should be off the table. The western world’s future does not depend on YOU getting married, and you do not owe your parents a grandchild. Despite the man-up garbage posted above me. You wouldn’t be having these doubts if there wasn’t something you noticed that bothered you about her, and you are entitled to sever if you desire.
Cane,
I agree with your 3rd point friend, but that’s about it.
He didn’t say he didn’t love her, though it’s possible that he doesn’t. He didn’t say that there were red flags. He simply said that he was risk averse, which is why I support your third point. Marriage ain’t for the weak male or female, and it never was.
Desiderius: What I am telling him is to use introspection to see if he has what it takes to make that happen (with a level of certainty he’s comfortable with) in his culture with that woman.
“Are there any other examples of “self correction” in history ?”
Our’s. They predicted what we’re now seeing in 1992. Worth a look.
The Roman Republic lasted nearly 500 years and survived many serious crises in so doing. We’re barely half way there.
Shucks, I hate when I hit submit without proof reading first. To clarify:
I agree with you Cane that he shouldn’t marry a woman he’s not in love with. My disagreement was with your automatic assumption that he doesn’t love her when he said nothing of the sort.
I agree with you that he shouldn’t ignore red flags, but again, he specifically said that there were no red flags.
My disagreement was based on the presumptions you made, not the validity of your words.
Well, after I posted my comment, I saw that I had been asked by a friend what I thought of Joseph’s conundrum; a moment too late, it seems. Perhaps I should rephrase.
Joseph: You are being foolish. Asking strangers (implicitly) whether you should marry this girl or not is a trap for all of us. Neither the Manosphere nor Game can answer that question–nor should they try. There are the three people actually in a Christian marriage: You, your woman, and God.
1. Do I want to be committed to this woman? Do you desire her only for yourself, but above all are you willing to give her to God?
2. Are you worth it, Woman? Does she desire you, but refrain from submitting fully from that desire because of her commitment to God above you?
3. Do you approve, God? If you are faithful in asking, He’ll take care of addressing the explanation.
“Desiderius: What I am telling him is to use introspection to see if he has what it takes to make that happen (with a level of certainty he’s comfortable with) in his culture with that woman.”
Fair enough. But his culture is not just defined by the present. It has a strong past that he likely has not been made aware of, and its future is not unaffected by the decisions he makes today.
What do cigars and vodka have to do with being devout? Catholics are neither anti-alcohol nor anti-cigars.
Gabriella says:
August 29, 2012 at 12:27 pm
I know that women are not capable of deep introspection or even thinking beyond what is plainly in front of your goddamn face, but you really push the limits of ‘dumb female’ by not even considering what her behaviour REPRESENTS when she is on her own wedding night acting like a worthless club whore.
@Elspeth
In my responses to Joseph’s decision, I take nothing for granted. It seems like he loves her. It seems like she’s a good woman. It seems like his problem is lack of information.
The fact is we don’t know if he loves her: only he does–or doesn’t, which is an answer itself.
The fact is we don’t know if she’s a good woman: we don’t know her at all.
The fact is that as far as we know, these two people are delaying real marital satisfaction they could be finding with other people. I’m against dangling others until we feel “comfortable”. I’m for marriage where he says, “If there weren’t laws against it, I would kidnap this woman!”, and she says, “I wish he would kidnap me already!”
Burn, baby…burn.
I agree, and I think your direct response to Joseph about the folly of asking strangers to offer guidance on something so vital was excellent and offered him good advice.
@lavazza1891
Navel-gazing introspection can be worse than worthless; especially for the sort of man who wants answers from an Internet forum. This is the trap he seems to have set for himself.
No. The decision of whether or not to marry is a Gordian Knot: You do not untangle it. You cut the sonunvabitch in half, or move on. Either he burns with passion for her, or he does not. All thinking should go into how, under the duress of this fire, he does not defile himself or her. As this pertains to culture, that might mean moving away, or setting clear boundaries.
In all of this, he ought to be consulting her on what her goals are. Dalrock’s Interviews for Potential Wife are an excellent primer. Again: Don’t resort to introspection, but inquire of her, and discern what she says, and how it matches with how she lives her life.
I’m with Cane.
Empath, seems to me the woman in question wants a man to “lead”, but only in the direction and manner that she desires. Once again, what she really wants is not a leader, but a chauffeur.
CL points to the Code Pink vulva parade in Tampa.
Farm boy:
I wonder how large their tampon bill is….
Zero. One way or another, that’s what beta orbiter men are for.
I hope he takes Canes advice and ignores the likes of YBM whose tone is so consistently antagonistic and attitude towards women so nasty he can hardly be trusted to give advice that is seriously concerned with Josephs happiness.
General rule to follow when it comes to listening to people: Misery loves company so unhappy people will generally try to help you make choices that will make you miserable. This is true for men and women.
The fact is that this woman DOES have flaws. Whether those flaws are deal breakers depends on the individual.
I broke-up with a fiance because he did not burn with passion the way Cane says a man and woman should before they marry. I felt something was “off”…like perhaps he was just trying to “man up and marry”. I know I am not perfect by a long shot and I have my quirks but whether those quirks make your life hell on earth or you consider them part of my charm depends on how infatuated you are. The man I ended up marrying was very much infatuated with me and even a decade later he tolerates me pretty well.
I think of picking a spouse as a bit like picking a puppy. You do your research on breeds, you do a few behavioral tests before you take them home, but for the most part picking a dog that you will love forever is a heart thing. You just see the dog and you can’t stand the idea of not taking that dog home with you and making it part of your family. So you do. And you love that dog even when it shits on your carpet and chews up your shoes. It is a crass analogy but it is the best I can come up with.
Gabriella says:
August 29, 2012 at 1:09 pm
hahahahaha
I know that to a gener raunch anglo-skank, getting rawdogged in a nightclub bathroom by the local mma crew is empowering and is what marks you as a good future wife. But to people who were not born into the disgrace that is anglo culture, a bride acting as though she gives blow jobs for shots while wearing a white wedding dress is somewhat distasteful. I don’t expect you or the rest of the anglo-american coffee klatch contingent to understand this since you probably act the same way.
“Navel-gazing introspection can be worse than worthless.”
Of course it can. Still it’s an important part in any religion or philosophy, just like action without attachment to the result of the action.
I love it when this happens. It used to happen at CF all the time.
We are given a couple of paragraphs about a L I F E of another two people, told by one of the two, and words enthusiastically fly off the keyboard with almost zero basis.
I have to assume that each of us reads the very small amount of info., and we fit it to our own past and narrative, then comment. Otherwise its even more unusual.
I saw whole new worlds created from a few sentences at CF.
Cane,
“Yeah, well, we’re not so formidable without good women behind us. Your (great?) grandmothers already knew that. Maybe they knew some other useful things too.
I’m not convinced this is the case, but even if it is, I see no reason to believe that women would choose to relegate each other back into the house; under the authority of fathers until marriage.”
That is a separate, but not entirely unrelated issue. Many young women (and men) are already moving back into the house for economic reasons, and I’ve seen them respond well to legitimate male authority (in a classroom environment), if they are convinced that that authority has their best interests in mind and mutual respect has been earned.
This generation of young people is not anti-authoritarian, its just that many of the authorities who are currently over them are lacking themselves or are often encouraging them to act in ways that are not in their own best interest. There is a reason The Hunger Games is so popular.
“That’s what we’re talking about.”
That’s what you’re talking about. I’m talking about having your man’s back, and thus having a man whose back you have. That doesn’t rule out him having yours either…
“Short of widespread violence forcing women strongly encouraging women to make this choice, I don’t see that happening. And I’m not one for wishing that.”
If it came to that, I’d be fighting on the other side, so no, I do not either.
“Another thing: The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, you say. What cradle?”
Yeah, that’s what is driving the whole thing. As a wise man once said, we’ll see.
It’s a typical feminist gambit. Ramp things up to the most extreme levels and then portray that as the normal that is being advocated. Mizz Gregoire’s latest hit piece on Christian Biblical submission is an excellent example of it being applied, especially since that’s one of the first stops. To quote Dalrock in the OP, with her down is up and left is right. If she writes the later piece she promised on it, I’m sure it will equate to her usual answer as was Mohler’s: Wifely Biblical submission is treating your husband like a dog and dominating him.
To their credit, the comments show a couple of people calling her out on her raking of her claimed source material, which is heartening to say the least. On this topic, her supporting of the celluloid trash known as Fireproof is proof enough on where her outlook on marriage is.
(it’s really easy to make a blog career out of pointing out the false teachings and heresy of ones like Mizz Gregoire, but I resist for most part. Though a post on this tactic might be good someday.)
Empathalogicalism:
Christian women and white knights have been trained to see things or hear things that are not there.
That’s because both see the world through the lens of the feminine imperative. Both want men to continuously re-prove themselves to women, to re-qualify for their “man badge”, for their alpha-enough credit.
For example, when I say that sex should just be, they read/hear a man should get sex on tap, spicy sex on tap, anytime anywhere he wants it no matter what. That is far easier to sanctimoniously oppose, so that is the Christian frame of today.
That’s like getting all worked up because a man says that breakfast and dinner should “just be there”. He shouldn’t expect eggs Benedict every morning, but he shouldn’t have to start hinting the night before “Gee, I sure would like some breakfast tomorrow”. He shouldn’t expect a five-course meal in the style of a three star Paris restaurant every night, but that doesn’t mean he should have to text her little teasing notes in the middle of the afternoon suggesting that it might be good to have some food at the end of the day.
Food. Sex. Two things men are known to need. Yeah, we need air and water, too, and we don’t physically die due to lack of sex, but even so, it’s not some kind of Super Secret Knowledge. All of this is, as I said, a manifestation of the feminine imperative: “Prove to me over and over and over again that you are good enough for me”. Yeah, well, I’m at the point to start quoting General Anthony McAuliffe on this issue. It’s long past time for women to Woman Up and deal their insecurities privately, rather than dragging them all over the house, the fornt yard, down the street, and all across the entire Internet. Woman, you married him. He’s good enough for you. Live with it. Maybe if you quit bitching and tearing at him, he might actually do something for you.
Try this on them. Suggest that paying the rent shouldn’t just “be”, that the wife should have to seduce her husband into paying the rent, the electric bill, the water bill. See how far that flies. Oh, but that’s different. Exactly so, men’s duties are always to be met, women have no duties. Especially in Churchianity.
Imagine truly believing that about anything, imagine how you would react when the thing in question was mentioned, defensively, derisively. Its all packaged and filed and sits comfortably that way. And…..its all jacked up wrong.
Imagine believing all that, and encountering someone like us. No wonder they get so shocked and angry. Well, itty-bitty-boo. Cry me a river, here’s a canoe for you with no paddle…
Desiderius says:
This generation of young people is not anti-authoritarian, its just that many of the authorities who are currently over them are lacking themselves or are often encouraging them to act in ways that are not in their own best interest. There is a reason The Hunger Games is so popular.
Listened to aging 60-something Boomers babble about The Hunger Games (THG) so far is predictable. Naturally they see it through the lens of 1968; “Oh, yeah, it’s all about standing up to The Man”. Fun thing to do: after they run down (which can take a while, it’s true) say clearly “You’re right. It is about standing up to The Man. What you miss is painfully obvious: you are The Man. Those degenerate dandies in the capitol city who bet on which young man or woman will die first? That’s how the young men and women see you. ”
Then just leave. Drop that turd into their punchbowl, and leave. Nothing the “forever young” have to say at that point is worth hearing.
Surely men have more duties than just paying the bills? Lets assume the woman works full-time and pays at least half of all the bills if not all of them. What then is the mans duties?
Your marital obligations is based entirely on the idea that men work and women sit back and enjoy the fruits of his work. But what if he doesn’t work? Or they both work equally?
I’m not trying to be argumentative for its own sake..I really want to know. I think a lot of the women who feel resentful at the obligations for sex on demand, breakfast and dinner made promptly, working out, and the the housework/childcare feel like the husband is being a bit entitled because it seems like he does less than her.
Anonymous Reader says:
August 29, 2012 at 1:42 pm
This ignores, of course, the bigger cultural issue that Authoritarianism is a BAD thing in a feminist state since it leads to the exact feminist police state that is identified so often around here. That authority will be unleashed 100% upon men, for the defense of ‘their women’ as seen here:
“If it came to that, I’d be fighting on the other side, so no, I do not either.”
Authoritarians are dangerous to men since they will conscript you and send you off to die for them. They fail to understand they are the authority that needs to be smashed.
See: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
@Desiderius
I had an incomplete edit in that sentence about ““Short of widespread violence”. It should read:
“Short of widespread violence strongly encouraging women to make this choice, I don’t see that happening. And I’m not one for wishing that.”
What I meant by the was not men using violence to round up women and hold them captive, but that a terror of dangerous and feral men will encourage them to stay in relatively calm, patriarchal homes…homes with shotguns, and men to bear them.
You say this is a separate but related topic. I don’t see how its separate. When God kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden, I think that was part of the reason why. She didn’t understand how much of life depended on Adam being the man. The wild will bring that more clearly into focus. I don’t think women today are any better than Eve, nor us, Adam.
Woman Up and deal their insecurities privately, rather than dragging them all over the house, the fornt yard, down the street, and all across the entire Internet.
——————————————————————–
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This insecurity thing is so out of control its a twisted badge of honor how much she can whine about how low her self image is. Its from the same root as when women in the 50’s and 60’s had to have a therapist to be able to drop the words-my therapist said-yea simplistically its a form of narcissism but not exactly.
Just this morning a local talk radio station in Memphis has a trio, 2 men one women, and a female caller called in and was very sanguine about how she used to be…her word….fat. The female host went on a tirade at men, fathers brothers spouses about the predictable pressures MEN put on the butterflies and that everything is beautiful all the time and she needs affirmation and on and on this narrative is rote, beyond rote.
The claim she *needs to feel safe*, I have asked countless ones what that even means….would burglar bars help? The HOA will get pissed indeed. Every answer was more obfuscation and dissembling. They do not know.
Yes I know whats what is said not whats done…..but that doesnt address this problem really does it
Gabriella
Surely men have more duties than just paying the bills? Lets assume the woman works full-time and pays at least half of all the bills if not all of them. What then is the mans duties?
Obviously his duties are whatever she assigns to him, because his sole purpose in life is to make her haaaaapy no matter what, because the sole reason for marriage is to make women haaaapy. He should be a good boy and do what he is told, lest his mistress yank on his choke chain.
Anonymous Reader says:
August 29, 2012 at 1:51 pm
And his duties are enforced by the state too!
ballista:
I read Gregoire’s piece on submission posted today. Interesting that she did not focus on Eph. 5, but rather on exhorting women not to put up with verbal or physical abuse or addiction or adultery. This is a red herring. No one seriously suggests that anyone today has to tolerate abuse. The bible does not require women to tolerate abuse or adultery or addiction either.
instead, Gregoire ramps up the most extreme examples of perverting scripture, offers them up, and tells her girls that they don’t have to put up with it. That’s the easy way out. If she really wanted to give her girls some good advice, she would tell them to read and obey Ephesians 5. The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is head of the Church. Husbands, love your wives. Wives, repsect your husbands and submit to them.
>>I asked my husband and he said the main benefit is companionship. Deti- Are you saying that companionship is a burden?
Not me. I am saying your husband is intellectually challenged. You want companionship, you buy a Golden Retriever.
>>I agree with DH that a contractual marriage for the purpose of exchanging goods and services is unappealing.
Worked for millenia. Your version of marriage is not working at all. Good job.
Deti of course she used the extremes. They afford the only things that will support their histrionic arguments
AR, there is only one thing to say to our equals (woman) about their insecurities, “Suck it up. Walk it off.”
@Deti
She won’t, of course, because she supports Marriage 2.0 enthusiastically. The natural outcome of writing such a piece is to get women to lower their standards of “being abused”. That’s why I brought up Gregoire’s support of Fireproof. To take her doctrine and extend it onward, she would see the wife in that movie as a poor abused woman who was just standing up for herself. It’s really not inconsistent with any of the other feminist hogwash, even that which pokes its head up here.
Men: All the responsibilities in marriage. Women: All the benefits. And if you dare expect ME to do anything, well….I’M ABUSED!
It is more typical for a wife to work in modern times than it is a wife to stay home. Mentioning this is not saying that the husbands job is to make her happy, but we can’t say it is a one way street and expect that to seem fair. Women owe men sex and food and whatever else he wants and he owes her a paycheck. Fine, this paradigm works IF he has a paycheck or they are not splitting paycheck duties equally.
I would say that a woman owes her husband submission and a husband owes his wife help with priorities… priorities that keep her physical, mental, and emotional health in mind. She can’t be the perfect wife, mistress, mother, cook, housekeeper, etc. That leads to burn-out. So when we talk about marital duties we should include submission and the responsibility of a husband to see that he cares for her well-being in ways other than financial provision.
ybm,
“That authority will be unleashed 100% upon men, for the defense of ‘their women’ as seen here:
“If it came to that, I’d be fighting on the other side, so no, I do not either.””
(a) As if. It wouldn’t be women I’d be defending, but the rights and freedoms that made this country what it is.
(b) Fuck yourself.
Legion:
+1
Gabriella
Your comment keeps the door open to this nebulous stuff about self esteem. Im sorry but the burden cannot be born by men, its fine to get a boost, to be made to feel good, but the foundations of worth are God given. Saying her mental and emotional health is a priority for him SHOULD mean he is doing no harm, and he is maintaining an atmosphere/environment in which SHE can maintain these.
“I dont feel safe” is mendacious
Desiderius says:
August 29, 2012 at 2:08 pm
(a) “Your country” is a feminized police state run by a small number of fabulously wealthy women and their beta male enablers with the highest rate of incarceration in the world, ongoing occupations and war profiteering, and a total lack of respect for men except as devices for the wealthy to consume and dispose of. That you would fight and die for these ideals proves the strong strain of authoritarianism, and yes, fascism, you hold.
(b) no thanks, can your wife come over instead?
@ballista74 & deti
Re: today’s Gregoireography
Talk about presenting the most negative possible view on submission. She will not present an image of what Godly submission looks like, how beautiful it is, or anything like that, because she is still rebelling just as she described on her mission trip when she was younger. Her understanding is shallow and her patience lacking.
I don’t know what I said that has anything to do with self-esteem? Your wife owes you submission. in turn..you owe her direction. If she needs to lose weight you get her a gym membership and watch the kids while she goes. If she is over-worked you tell her the top 5 housework duties that are the most important to you. If she is too much of a “people pleaser” and finds herself over-extended in volunteerism then you tell her to limit her volunteering to what is most managable and important. If she spends too much you give her a spending limit. If she doesn’t spend enough you give her some cash and tell her to get her nails done or buy a dress (if you like nails and dresses). If you think she is letting her brains go to waste you tell her to take a college class..if you feel she is prioritizing academic success above other things you direct her towards other pursuits.
She owes you obedience and you owe her the proper use of your authority towards her well-being.
It doesn’t mean you micromanage or that you get into her psyche and play Freud.
@Gabriella — You seem to be arguing that women should be free to arbitrarily withhold sex from their husbands… or else… that she should be able to force him to jump throw hoops to get it depending on how well she feels he’s attending to her priorities. You view sex as a carrot/stick training device rather than something expressly set apart for marriage. 1 Cor 7 expressly takes sex off the table as being something a couple gets to wrangle and negotiate over. Why do you exercise yourself so much looking for a pass for yourself on a very basic and clear direction in the scriptures…?
mental health……self esteem, so, those are unrelated?
Gabriella
It is more typical for a wife to work in modern times than it is a wife to stay home.
Well, sure. How else are they to be able to afford to live in the style she’s accustomed to? How else can they keep up with the neighbors in new cars, plasma TV’s, trips to Maui, and all the things that make her haaaaapy?
Mentioning this is not saying that the husbands job is to make her happy, but we can’t say it is a one way street and expect that to seem fair.
Mentioning this is to say exactly that it is his job to make her haaaapy, because she refuses to ever be content with less than perfection. Besides, the ever-moving goal posts of her haaaapiness keep him in a state of perpetual failure, thus enabling her to forever find something wrong with him that simply must be fixed before she can ever feel secure enough to, you know, do that.
Women owe men sex and food and whatever else he wants and he owes her a paycheck.
No, no, no, women owe him nothing and he must do anything that makes her haaaapy, even if it is only for a moment, while she looks around to find some other glaring fault he needs to work on.
Fine, this paradigm works IF he has a paycheck or they are not splitting paycheck duties equally.
The paradigm of endless supplication, chasing forever receding goals, works well to keep a man in control. Now doesn’t it?
I would say that a woman owes her husband submission and a husband owes his wife help with priorities… priorities that keep her physical, mental, and emotional health in mind.
That would require him to set the priorities, and her to follow them. But we can’t have that, it would mean she was being controlled by him. So your solution, to have her set the priorities and him to meet them, even as she continually shifts and changes priorities without ever telling him, surely must be better. I mean, look around you, everyone else is doing it…
She can’t be the perfect wife, mistress, mother, cook, housekeeper, etc.
No man is asking for that. Really. Seriously. No man is asking for the perfect wife, mistress, mother, cook, housekeeper. We want one that is good enough at those things.
Consider this purely hypothetical situation: a woman works for money and honors & obeys her supervisor in the work place, loves and honors her children at home to the point that she is in “Mom” mode at all times in the house.
Question: To whom is she “married”?
I suggest it ain’t whats-his-name.
That leads to burn-out. So when we talk about marital duties we should include submission and the responsibility of a husband to see that he cares for her well-being in ways other than financial provision.
But of course, to properly care for her, he’d have to exert leadership. And that is the last thing that women want, a man to lead them, because he might lead them in a way that doesn’t make them haaapy all the time, or worse yet he might try to lead them somewhere they don’t want to go.
Much better if he just accepts his role as house doormat, does as he is told, keeps his mouth shut and obeys his mistress, lest she yank on his choke chain.
Cane,
“What I meant by the was not men using violence to round up women and hold them captive, but that a terror of dangerous and feral men will encourage them to stay in relatively calm, patriarchal homes…homes with shotguns, and men to bear them.”
Yes, I did miss your meaning. I think we’re already seeing a somewhat less severe version of that dynamic in the brutality of the hookup culture and the poor economy. The solution is not to “turn back the clock” to a patriarchy largely understood by most people under-40 through the distorted lens of their feminist upbringing in any case. “Turning back the clock” is the ultimate horror because the American identity is so tied up in being in the vanguard of progress (this is why the Progressives call themselves that, when they’re often anything but).
Traditions are collections of changes that have proven themselves through the test of time. They are a good place to look for ideas when one is seeking new changes to add to the collection, and their track record of success means they should not be cast aside lightly, but make no mistake, the solutions that will emerge will be something new, not the return to something old, even if the new contains many elements of the old.
In Christ we are a new creation.
I didn’t say anything about withholding sex. I think it is wrong for either spouse to withhold sex. I am arguing that a mans obligations in marriage are not limited to financial provision.
She is to submit to his authority and he is to use his authority for her benefit. Not for her priorities because her priorities can be bad..in fact often a wife will prioritize according to how her friends do rather than what is best for her or her family.
You can’t limit a husbands obligation to finances ESPECIALLY in modern times when two-incomes are often necessary.
Empath- Not unrelated. But I don’t think a man can fix a woman’s self-esteem issues. He can help her prioritize her husband, her children, and her health IF she struggles to do it on her own.
ybm
The Iguana says
So Young, So Angry….damn that rap music
So you score you back all morning with a cat-o-nine-tails to build a head of anger steam and some twisted sense of ethic/nationalistic (reverse jingoistic) supremacy?
Are you really as narrow minded as your repetitive assertions and shallow attempts to provoke?
Is there a topic under the sun that American inferiority isn’t a response to?
Can one tilt at wind turbines?
ybm, I’m afraid that you do not have the cultural perspective to really understand my comment about Boomers and THG. Boomers fancy themselves perpetually as 22 years old & rebelling against their stodgy old parents who just want to keep them from having fun and fixing the world. They look at THG and see themselves as the young men and women in the Game, not as the degenerates running that world. Shoving reality in their faces really upsets them because it overturns 40 years of fantasy.
ybm,
“Your country”
It’s yours too. Billions of Jacobs would trade places with you in a heartbeat – don’t let them talk you out of that birthright.
Don’t disagree about the real, but the ideal is a different thing. Takes both to clean up that real.
AR, there is only one thing to say to our equals (woman) about their insecurities, “Suck it up. Walk it off.”
But, but, but . . . . in my empowered grrrrl power state, I can’t do this. All y’all men need to do it for me!
empathologicalism says:
August 29, 2012 at 2:28 pm
I love that at any point, at any time, an american will associate ‘anglo’ with only themselves.
Anonymous Reader says:
August 29, 2012 at 2:28 pm
Oh they think they are the kids? I haven’t even seen the movie to thanks for the clarification, I figured the ‘rebellious’ boomers thought they were the societies on the outside.
ybm,
“no thanks, can your wife come over instead?”
I do not have a wife.
AR, there is only one thing to say to our equals (woman) about their insecurities, “Suck it up. Walk it off.”
But, but, but . . . . in my empowered grrrrl power state, I can’t do this. All y’all men need to do it for me! Good grief, Women need to make themselves happy.
ybm,
how odd that you think I was responding to one post from you.
Hell it took me months of reading your hyperbole to even say anything to you, and though I can’t be sure, I do not think anglo was used in all of them
empathologicalism says:
August 29, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Please identify the hyperbole I always enjoy hearing where research would better improve my understanding of the anglo cultural morass and its infestation spreading across the world.
I learned it on Our Man Flint movies
I’m a baby boomer, and an anglo (and an American) now that IS a more-ass
The problem a wife can’t make herself happy AND be submissive at the same time. You either have to prioritize your own wants and needs or you prioritize someone else’s. You can’t do both. This is why one of the responsibilities of headship is to make reasonable accommodations for the emotional and physical needs of those under your care. A good boss gives days off to his employees and health insurance. A good husband pays attention to possible problems and directs those under him towards the proper solutions.
empathologicalism says:
August 29, 2012 at 2:44 pm
I see, and I do love James Bond movies (I’ve driven the same model as the Aston Martin in Goldfinger, the silver one! I adored it). I do not blame boomers, my parents are baby boomers although not anglo ones. I merely use harsh language to identify that their generation does not truly understand my generation, and that the prosperity they (you) have lived in will never be achieved by humans again unless perpetual energy devices are invented.
The boomer reaction to it has been to try and squeeze as much productive capacity from the young as possible. This is in direct opposition to what the goal of the ‘man-blogs’ is, to give men the freedom to not work, not marry, not attain consumer goods. To simplY: Live for themselves.
if you’d like to expand the discourse please do so, all I ask is that when you identify an error of mine, you give me the correction in proof so I can expand my understanding.
The problem a wife can’t make herself happy AND be submissive at the same time.
This doesn’t make any sense. Why does being submissive mean a woman can’t have her own wants and needs met? Anecdotal, sure, but I do just fine. There are enough hours in the day to do both.
Somewhere on a hill near a lake outside Ljubljana Slovenia, The Yugoslavian Nicolea Tesla stored some old notebooks which have notations that were made in the margins and were scratched over as evidenced by the imprint on the pages behind them.
If you ask the old man who lives in the cabin, he will allow you to see these notebooks, it will cost you only a bottle of single malt, pretty much any as he cannot be picky.
There is the schematic Teslas perpetual motion machine.
I intend to rule the world with it.
Or not.
http://www.ufodigest.com/article/mystical-legacy-nikola-tesla-martian-or-time-traveler
“Nikola Tesla was not an Earthman.”
lol
Nope. He was made of flubber.
On YBM:
If I remember correctly: YBM is a rich Italian man (childless, and unmarried) who is a proponent of the feminist-inspired Men’s Right’s Movement. He is socialist/Marxist in his politics and sociology.
@YBM
Your attempt at ironic humor has displaced your sense of irony itself.
Personally, I love that, at any point, an Italian can get onto the American invention called “The Internet”; which was made possible by the American government subjecting an infantile defense network to the rigors of the marketplace–specifically an American marketplace–where those market forces grew that little net into the giant web that has radically changed the world.
I love that such an Italian can go to a blog written by an American, hosted on American servers, and populated by well over 90% Americans, discussing the nature of sexual and marital relations, specifically as they apply and manifest in American culture.
I love that, such an Italian, can disparage Anglo culture; which is absolutely DOMINATED by a specifically American form of Anglo culture–so much so that you can only talk about another country’s influence (whether in or out of the Anglo world) in comparison to American culture; and that he is protected from reprisal in this age of fast, anonymous, information by the worldwide influence of American ideas about privacy and freedom; however badly upheld in recent administrations.
I don’t blame you for wanting to fuck hypothetical American wives. It’s only natural to want revenge for the alpha of the planet, America, having made a cuckold of not just Italy, but all of Europe, for what will probably end up being millenia.
Thats why I mentioned the location of the notebooks, from the Italian border he can be to the cabin in a couple hours, and get some really good fresh water fishing done en route.
Oh crap, that’s angler not anglo
Cane Caldo says:
August 29, 2012 at 3:04 pm
That’s an awful lot of words to say I don’t like you, and Italy sucks. A very, very thin skin! It makes no difference to me your opinion on Italy, why must you care of my opinion of anglo to the point of this diatribe? Is it because there is truth in what I say? I will make no terrorist apologia, but when the world is seen with eyes such as yours in the anglo world, hatred of it is not so difficult to imagine.
I am not offended.
@Gabriella — “The problem a wife can’t make herself happy AND be submissive at the same time.”
The problem is that a Eve couldn’t make herself happy AND be submissive at the same time. And you are very much her daughter. This is the reason why you are unable to form a coherent response to the deeply spiritual concepts that are being discussed here. You just always have to have some wiggle room, don’t you?
(Seriously… I truly thought that women were spiritually and intellectually equal to men until women like you showed me just how limited your sex is when it comes to understanding direct New Testament commands.)
ybm gets a posso pass
empathologicalism says:
August 29, 2012 at 3:07 pm
The fishing in the Adriatic is not what it was when I was young. I caught a 28lbs spring salmon off the coast of vancouver island last week however!
I don’t represent all women. Do you want me to find the worst of the worst of men and say he represents you?
NAWATWOW
Not all women are the worst of women
If I prioritize myself then when he wants breakfast I sleep in. If he wants sex and I don’t I say no. If your needs/wants conflict then I have to choose one and if I choose myself then he loses. But I don’t prioritize myself..I prioritize him… so I frequently reject my own wants to satisfy his. That’s submission.
All I am saying is that a man needs to give some care to his wife’s needs if he expects her to be submissive in EVERYTHING. He owe’s his wife more than financial provision. Not DEFERENCE, just care.
I know a lot of women who are way more smart, spiritual, and disciplined than I am. It isn’t fair to say “This bitch is stupid so all bitches are stupid”. It isn’t fair to those women.
> …Nope. He was made of flubber.
One of his biographies was titled “Man Out of Time”.
In 1926, Tesla commented on the ills of the social subservience of women and the struggle of women toward gender equality, indicated that humanity’s future would be run by “Queen Bees”. He believed that women would become the dominant sex in the future. – wikipedia
Reminds me of reading once that a woman tried heckling Winston Churchill at some speaking event. She said (approximately) ‘I’ll have you know Mr. Churchill, that in 50 years women will run the world!’. Churchill paused dramatically and then said ‘What! Still?’. LOL
Gabriella,
Do you not get any joy from caring for your husband? Does not making him a nice breakfast before he goes out for the day, filling his stomach, make you happy? Sure, it’s nice to sleep in from time to time, but my goodness no one gets what they want all the time. If you don’t get to sleep in, isn’t there something else you can do for yourself to be happy? Prioritizing oneself constantly does not elicit happiness, it elicits selfishness and greed.
Martian…you have read the notebooks, you sir have found the connection.
To harness the kinetic energy of billions of hamsters on wheels attached to servos, knowing these hamsters are fueled NOT by radio waves such as the touted Tesla coil, but on emotions.
To this extent, we can provide both food, and energy from the same source.
Soylent Green AND perpetual energy are made out of people!
@AR
About the Boomers, you nailed it.
You are talking big picture..I am talking day-by-day and minute-by-minute. Generally you have to adopt an attitude of prioritizing one persons needs and in a submissive marriage that is the husband. In the minute when I am tired I am not thinking “its great to make his breakfast”..I’m thinking “I want sleep”.
Priority means when you have to choose you choose one over the other. Yes.. sometimes you don’t have to choose. Sometimes your own happiness and his are not mutually exclusive but SOMETIMES they are.
So if a man wants his wife to prioritize his needs over her own he must take some care to recognize when there is a problem and to make reasonable effort to fix it. IE if she is getting out of shape get her a gym membership or workout equipment or babysit while she goes for a run. If she never has a problem that needs his direction and intervention then thats great…its just unusual.
What is THG?
And re Boomers, being one of the final ones (born 62) I cop to mucking up gender and marriage and such, being the apogee generation for that particular flavor of dysfunction.
Watching the generations following staring at our present leader with wild eyed wonderment hanging on every syllable of Hope and Change, and overwhelmingly finding intellectual sufficiency (cough) in that to throw big numbers behind him, weeellll, lets say touche on who needed/needs to come to grips with reality.
There are wives who make their husbands breakfast??? Where do I get one of those?
@ Gabriella – women CAN be submissive and happy. You see, my submissive woman, because of the way she holds her position with me, she honors herself greatly.
I praise her in public circles. I give her things she asks for. I let her do her own thing- nay, I encourage it… because she always comes back and sets herself at my feet. It makes her beautiful, it makes her powerful, it elevates her to honor.
On the other hand, a rebellious woman would get only rejection and scorn from me.
The Curse of Eve, however, establishes that Eve now has two natures- one side is to be that harmonious helpmeet that God designed her to be, and one is a usurper, who strives to rule over her husband. This enduring inner conflict does result in some discord.
You either submit as God designed you, and contend with that inner urge to mutiny…. OR you go ahead with the mutiny and rebellion, and find yourself discontent because things aren’t right in that scenario.
The bible has called women to function in submission to a husband, even with the curse of Eve causing discord, and exhorts men and women to snuff out that rebellious element, both with great leadership and with rebuke. This same self-discipline is required of men, and we will damn sure require it of women.
I’m here to tell you that any person who gains self-mastery and self-discipline IS necessarily a “happy” or content person, because they have banished self-sabotage. Women who know that their men are helping them defeat their own self-sabotage, and then celebrate her successes in it are very happy women indeed. Women without such guidance or self-mastery are a damned wreck and you know it.
@ deti and ballista
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— 4 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed. Titus 2: 3-5
The older women are to admonish/train the younger women because submission does not come naturally to them. A role of older women is to train younger women to be good wives, because without the training (or when the training becomes politically incorrect), well…how well have they been discreet, chaste, good homemakers, etc?
@YBM
I don’t hate you or Italy. You’re projecting as a shield, and trying to parry me by falling back; which is stupid because this isn’t a sword fight. Don’t you know I’m a religious American gun-nut? That’s not a sword pointed your direction, but a bayonet.
Let’s try this another way as it is so very relevant:
Generally you have to adopt an attitude of taking responsibility over one persons needs and in a marriage where the man leads that is the wife. In the minute when I am tired I am not thinking “its great to go to work today”..I’m thinking “I want sleep”.
Responsibility means when you have to choose you choose one over the other. Yes.. sometimes you don’t have to choose. Sometimes your own happiness and his are not mutually exclusive but SOMETIMES they are.
So if a woman wants her husband to prioritize her needs over his own she must take some care to recognize when there is a problem and to make reasonable effort to fix it. IE if he is getting burned out from work she must insist that he take the night or the weekend off or babysit while he goes out for a night with the boys. If he never has a problem that needs her help and support then thats great…its just unusual.
@ Gabriella – women CAN be submissive and happy. You see, my submissive woman, because of the way she holds her position with me, she honors herself greatly.
To suggest otherwise is to say, “Women can find great happiness living outside God’s law.” True, I suppose, but what kind of happiness?
Cane Caldo says:
August 29, 2012 at 3:46 pm
You aren’t a very good troll.
You are a wimp, you come from a frame of weaknesses making allusions to having guns on the internet. Its hilarious.
I tried to comment on Gregiore’s blog. It was disallowed.
LOL
I even tried to be decent.
I think you guys are missing my point.
My point is submission should be rewarded with MORE than financial provision, especially since financial provision is often a two-way street these days.
I agree that women should be aware of what is good for them and do it, but sometimes they are not and a good husband will recognize when they are not doing what is good for them. That is one of the responsibilities of headship.
Why should I “reward” someone for giving me something that already belongs to me?
The problem a wife can’t make herself happy AND be submissive at the same time.
You just said a mouthful. Your view of happiness is myopic. Gratifying the self leads to misery and discontent, even in the short term.
Putting someone else’s needs ahead of our own is more uplifting than that extra hour of sleep, unless you are truly exhausted. I get what you’re saying, but it doesn’t matter. Get your ideas right and things will fall into place better.
It’s worth taking the hour to listen to this:
The majority of husbands already do that. It is the leadership part that eludes them.
You guys are discussing a macro view of life satisfaction. In the day-to-day and minute-to-minute a wife can feel very burdened by submission.
WHAT, if anything, do husbands owe their wives BESIDES financial provision? Is it nothing? Or is it something other than what I have suggested?
@empathologicalism
Damned Straight!
I recall making much the same suggestion as you in the comments to another story at a different site ~1 yr ago. Hamsterwheel power is our true key to energy independence. Quick, somebody call the Republitards!
The old family homestead is in the Colorado Springs area, where Tesla had his lightning lab for a while, so I’ve spent a lot of time there. There’s a street named after him, as well as an organization with a small science-y tribute museum always trying to raise funds.
To this day the place is still crawling w/Tesla kooks and conspiracy theorists, who think the AIr Force developed, and has in a secret hanger somewhere, a working version of the plans in those notebooks – basically phasers (like in Star Trek). There’s a Tesla coil some tinkerer has built in every other garage – and a magnetic flux capacitor in every pot. At the time I saw a highly advertised one, it was supposed to be the biggest (bug zapper) in the world not under government authority. Microamps of megavoltage. Very analogous to the content-free, so-called thinking produced by women.
It was a joke, YBM, trading on the wrong idea that I hate you, the idea that Americans are religious gun-nuts, and on the idea that I’m the thin-skinned one.
That puts the score at 2-0, Cane.
Gabby, if you could just wait a little bit, I’m writing a post about this. Should be up tonight.
Cane Caldo says:
August 29, 2012 at 4:19 pm
Ok, what are you keeping score of exactly? How many times you decide you’ve identified an american stereotype then posted about it? Some form of ‘where’s wally’ for american stereotypes? stereotypes they may be, the gun issue is grounded in a high amount of truth, as is the misplaced machismo associated with it.
Misplaced machismo, does this mean it is now 3-0 or do you have to identify it to be given the points?
And politicians. (how silly of me to forget)
@Gabriella
In the day-to-day and minute-to-minute a wife can feel very burdened by submission.
A man has his daily burdens too.
“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
Cane- Are you suggesting I am impatient? If I seem impatient it is because when I comment here I often feel like I am on the phone with one of those Indian customer service reps who keep acting like they understand what you are saying but you actually said something completely different. Its like I am saying “I want X product” and they keep saying “No, No..we are out of B product” and then I insist one more time “Thats not the product I want. I want X product” and they get mad “Americans are so stupid, they can’t understand we are out of B product” and then I say OK..FUCK IT..You tell me what products you have and I’ll see if any of those match what I have in mind”.
Tesla’s Queen Bee Society: THERE are the vast, desexualized armies of workers whose sole aim and happiness in life is hard work. It is the perfection of communism, of socialized, cooperative life wherein all things, including the young, are the property and concern of all.
Whew! Glad we didn’t go there. Ok, he did say it would take centuries.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2195230/10-reasons-NEVER-married–Online-presenter-taking-web-storm-offers-unique-wisdom-getting-wed.html
Come on, keep to the script!
5) Marriage means endless cleaning up after a man
7) You have to change the sheets every other week
9) You have to be more caring and sharing
I see that living in filth and being a bitch is now part of the empowered anglo-american females entitlements….
Empathalogicalism
What is THG?
The Hunger Games. A trilogy that is now outselling Harry Potter books in the early teen demographic. A movie of the first book came out earlier this year. There is a scene that is clearly a tribute to Leni Reifenstahl’s most famous work. It is worth seeing, and if possible view it with someone of the target market age (13 – 17 or so).
And re Boomers, being one of the final ones (born 62) I cop to mucking up gender and marriage and such, being the apogee generation for that particular flavor of dysfunction.
Oh, no, Boomers are not the apogee in any way. They’re just stunningly clueless as a rule about two things
1. What exactly they have done
2. How others regard them for it.
Watching the generations following staring at our present leader with wild eyed wonderment hanging on every syllable of Hope and Change, and overwhelmingly finding intellectual sufficiency (cough) in that to throw big numbers behind him, weeellll, lets say touche on who needed/needs to come to grips with reality.
That’s your children you’re talking about. Maybe not genetically, but culturally. What they know, they learned from their mentors. For example, when Boomers defended BJ Clinton in regard to getting some Monica jobs at work, the younger people learned something about power…and the incidence of oral sex in high schools and junior highs went up just a bit, because the Presidential Seal of Approval had been stamped on it. In some ways, BJ typifies the leading edge of the Boom. Don’t take this personally, because i know some other men who were born the same year who have lived exactly oppositely to BJ Clinton, and they can’t stand him either. They are a minority, IMO.
So, Not All Boomers Are Like That (NABALT) if it helps. But my little anecdote above about THG has a lot of truth to it.
Peter, yes, there are wives who make their husbands breakfast. Mine just brought me breakfast in bed.
Gabriella
Generally you have to adopt an attitude of prioritizing one persons needs and in a submissive marriage that is the husband. In the minute when I am tired I am not thinking “its great to make his breakfast”..I’m thinking “I want sleep”.
And he may well be thinking “I don’t want to go to work, I want more sleep”. But he’s going to work anyway, and what’s more he won’t whine to you about it. You won’t even know he thought that.
Priority means when you have to choose you choose one over the other. Yes.. sometimes you don’t have to choose. Sometimes your own happiness and his are not mutually exclusive but SOMETIMES they are.
And on a regular basis, any married man is choosing the priorities of someone else over his. He just doesn’t go on and on and on about it to other people. Because that’s what he’s supposed to do, period.
So if a man wants his wife to prioritize his needs over her own he must take some care to recognize when there is a problem and to make reasonable effort to fix it. IE if she is getting out of shape get her a gym membership or workout equipment or babysit while she goes for a run. If she never has a problem that needs his direction and intervention then thats great…its just unusual.
In other words, it’s his job to make her haaaapy. No matter what it costs him. Because the haaapiness of women is the most important thing in the world.
@Gabriella – The problem as I see it here is that women want to make men responsible for their own well being when it comes to marriage. And that really isn’t possible. She needs to be the one that finds her own strength and her own faith in Christ (or in life, or whatever). She is the one that needs to be content with the situation she is in and not look to her husband to provide her self-esteem, joy, happiness, or whatever fits in that category. If she’s wearing big-girl panties, she needs to be taking care of herself in these areas and not looking to her husband to provide those things. Doing so is caustic both to the woman and the man she is with (why I broke up with my longest LTR, I saw she was doing this). Men want a real woman to wive, not a child in a woman’s body. Children are the ones that need cared for, entertained, and so on, along with being raised.
Now if there are out of the way financial needs associated with these things, it can be up to her to ask for those things. As well, he can both suggest and provide as head things as you indicated. But an adult is responsible for their own well being, according to Godly dictates. Single or married, man or woman. The problem I see is that women aren’t finding the nearest mirror when something goes wrong or when they become unhaaaaapy, but are looking to blame everyone else.
Goodness, who knew that making breakfast was such a big deal.
Imagine they had to cook a farmer’s breakfast every morning, like over here. They would probably die!
Gabriella: Just a tip: a big part of the ‘language barrier’ here is that you’re interjecting what men should do – stuff which you’re pretty unarguably correct about, mind you – into the context of a discussion about what many women aren’t doing. This always comes off as making excuses, even when it’s really not intended that way and there’s nothing in the statement itself to support it being interpreted that way – not just in this particular context, but any time there’s a discussion about what someone should or shouldn’t be doing.
Unfortunate reality of diplomacy. I offer no solution.
@ ballista74
To sum it up, a guy could provide conditions under which a wife could be happy, but ultimately she is responsible for her own happiness.
I think Gabriella has a good point. What she is saying is that a husband should consider his wife’s true needs. I think this is exactly what a good husband does. All her true needs, including spiritual. This does not mean pandering to her.
And she’s also correctly – if perhaps unnecessarily (I would not presume to judge) – cautioning us that men too can think ‘since I’m not getting my due, I’m not going to bother giving what I owe’.
CL, breakfast has become a political symbol of what feminists hate, of course.
My wife usually provides something simple, but she aways provides. But I think, if she were asked, she would see it as just routine.
Not everything is political.
I remember an episode of Firefly, I think, where they picked up a woman from a patriarchal planet. You could tell she was a space alien because she wanted to cook her man his breakfast. I think it is the feminist writer Joss Whedon who is really the alien.
AR- So what, in your opinion, makes a man a good husband?
Some women are chronically discontent so I don’t think all men can make their wives haaaapppy or whatever. I think men can take care of their wives though by correcting them if they are making some poor choices and help direct them towards good choices.
As far as emotional need- I just want my husband to be in-love with me. Not love me in the action verb sense (though that is nice)..but to actually feel infatuated with me. I want his heart to still race sometimes when he is with me. I want his eyes to light up when he talks about me to his friends. I want him to ENJOY my company.
If he does not feel infatuated with me I want him to help me understand why and give me ideas on how to get that loving feeling back.
If he feels deeply and madly in-love with me then I will be happy. Though I do not mean to imply THAT BEING HAPPY IS REQUIRED for me to be a good and faithful wife. It is a pretty nice bonus though.
As far as emotional need- I just want my husband to be in-love with me. Not love me in the action verb sense (though that is nice)..but to actually feel infatuated with me. I want his heart to still race sometimes when he is with me. I want his eyes to light up when he talks about me to his friends. I want him to ENJOY my company.
Shut up and make him breakfast then!
@Gabby
[Note: This comment is not a personal comment about Gabriella, but about the assumptions she shares with most American women]
As far as emotional need- I just want my husband to be in-love with me. Not love me in the action verb sense (though that is nice)..but to actually feel infatuated with me. I want his heart to still race sometimes when he is with me. I want his eyes to light up when he talks about me to his friends. I want him to ENJOY my company.
IOW, marriage should be an eternal courtship. Love means the infatuation of the first stages of the relationship (which science has proved it can’t last). When the thrill is gone, divorce is justified because love is over. This is the mentality of the modern American woman. The mentality that has created such destruction in the American family:
“You know, honey. Your father and I are being divorced. The love is gone so we can’t go on. But the carpenter really gets me. His heart races when he is with me, unlike your father who is always tired. He is emotionally closed to me. I know you can’t be happy if I am not happy, can you? After all, you will still see your father once in a blue moon. And now you have a new daddy!!”
Too much fairy tales. The concept of marriage of the American woman is the same a fifteen-year-old girl has. Fortunately, in Europe and in Latin America, women mature.
thrills do not equal happiness.
unger
Gabriella: Just a tip: a big part of the ‘language barrier’ here is that you’re interjecting what men should do – stuff which you’re pretty unarguably correct about, mind you – into the context of a discussion about what many women aren’t doing. This always comes off as making excuses, even when it’s really not intended that way and there’s nothing in the statement itself to support it being interpreted that way – not just in this particular context, but any time there’s a discussion about what someone should or shouldn’t be doing.
Unger, you may be confusing ignorance or error with the feminine imperative.
It’s not an accident that any discussion of what women do not do must, must be restructured as a discussion of what men must and should do. Just as fitness tests in a relationship are never an accident, even if they are not done consciously.
Gabriella
AR- So what, in your opinion, makes a man a good husband?
An understanding of the female imperative, coupled with the will to deal with it in an adult fashion.
Dalrock, I have a topic for you, but it’s not going to be easy. Here’s the transcript of Ann Romney’s speech at the Republican National Convention. As you read this, bear in mind that she’s the wife of the heap-big patriarch, Mitt Romney. So when she praises single mothers, it’s worth noting. Sure, it’s just Party B pandering for some of the voters of Party A, not that it’s going to do much good. The point is, this address would surely meet with the approval of both Driscoll and Mohler, and this is the “social conservative” party that is supported by “traditional conservatives”. There’s a lot to read, if you are a drinking man you might want to be prepared in advance:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-of-ann-romneys-remarks-at-the-republican-national-convention/2012/08/28/05c01848-f182-11e1-b74c-84ed55e0300b_print.html
Here’s a sample:
Sometimes I think that late at night, if we were all silent for just a few moments and listened carefully, we could hear a great collective sigh from the moms and dads across America who made it through another day, and know that they’ll make it through another one tomorrow. But in that end of the day moment, they just aren’t sure how.
And if you listen carefully, you’ll hear the women sighing a little bit more than the men. It’s how it is, isn’t it?
It’s the moms who always have to work a little harder, to make everything right.
It’s the moms of this nation—single, married, widowed—who really hold this country together. We’re the mothers, we’re the wives, we’re the grandmothers, we’re the big sisters, we’re the little sisters, we’re the daughters.
You know it’s true, don’t you? You’re the ones who always have to do a little more.
No, that’s Germaine Greer, it’s Mrs. Romney.
Feminism. We are all soaking in it all the time, and if we aren’t actively rejecting it, we are passively accepting it.
Gabriella
As far as emotional need- I just want my husband to be in-love with me. Not love me in the action verb sense (though that is nice)..but to actually feel infatuated with me. I want his heart to still race sometimes when he is with me. I want his eyes to light up when he talks about me to his friends. I want him to ENJOY my company.
I shall quote myself from earlier in the day, with two corrections:
It’s long past time for women to Woman Up and deal with their insecurities privately, rather than dragging them all over the house, the front yard, down the street, and all across the entire Internet. Woman, you married him. He’s good enough for you. Live with it.
Even though it is probably not her goal, Gabriella is proving to be real catalyst in teaching guys red pill truths
Peter,
“There are wives who make their husbands breakfast??? Where do I get one of those?”
I found mine well outside the anglosphere, and I’m planning on joining her there, rather than having her come here.
Gabriella – I see why you think that submission can sometimes be burdensome. I think that this is a problem that is best avoided when you are picking a spouse. If your major life goals, expectations, and lifestyle choices match then submission is probably easier. Most of what he wants will also be things that he wants.
I’m not sure what a husband is supposed to give his wife other than his protection and provision. Most women are capable of protecting and providing for themselves which is why men are seen more as accessories than as something necessary by so many. I think that submission might feel like less of a burden when you submit to someone that you are truly dependent on. In many marriages the husband isn’t doing anything for the wife that she can’t do for herself so he just becomes someone not adding much to her life and trying to boss her around.
HOLD your horses, dudes.
What I need to be happy in a relationship is simply a side discussion. It has zero to do with what is OWED a wife.
Relationships have hills and valleys. I don’t advocate running out and divorcing during a valley.
I can live without happiness…I can be content with very little. Content =/= happiness.
Many of you are jumping to wild conclusions.
Its silly to act like my emotional needs are all kinds of shallow and stupid but the desire to have your phallus worshiped isn’t. If you don’t want the emotional needs of a man to be judged then why judge the emotional needs of a woman’s? If someone (not me) wants flowers and poetry is it really any different than wanting breakfast in bed and an hour long BJ?
We can agree that divorcing for unhappiness is wrong and a terrible thing to do. Judging what makes someone happy? That is actually amoral. I am not somehow wrong because certain things make me happy and other things don’t.
“You know it’s true, don’t you? You’re the ones who always have to do a little more.”
A question for female readers:
Are you proud that this shit works on you? Politicians wouldn’t do it if it didn’t. What does that say about your (present) character? Wasn’t always that way. Doesn’t have to stay that way either.
“You know it’s true, don’t you? You’re the ones who always have to do a little more.”
Victimhood feels good. Then you get goodies.
I have a genuine desire to know what you men believe a woman is owed from her husband..especially when financial responsibilities are shared. So far I have made some suggestions and when asked for others opinions I got basically nothing…it was implied that I am wrong or being manipulative by even suggesting the question.
Which is fine..but I think the zillion lurkers are probably curious too and many of them probably suspect you guys have high expectations of wives but low expectations of yourselves. If not..say otherwise.. because that is probably the impression you are giving.
Desiderius- I’d answer your question but I seem to have missed something because I don’t know what you are referring to.
I have a genuine desire to know what you men believe a woman is owed from her husband..especially when financial responsibilities are shared.
I can only give my opinion. I know many people will disagree.
Are financially responsibilities EQUALLY shared? Are risks equally shared? (as in the husband having the same probability of being awarded custody, child support and alimony than the wife).
If this is so, I believe both spouses have the same rights and responsibilities. Complete equality. You have to remember I am from the “real equality” part of the MRM. (The other part is the “back to the patriarchy” one):
But what happens in reality is not this. 90% of husbands earn more than their wives. They do it by having more stressful jobs and working more. This is because women tend to marry a man who earns more (go figure). And risks are not equally shared. A woman does not have the same risk of losing her children and her assets because of divorce than a man.
Since the situation is not equal, the woman has to compensate by giving more to the relationship: in household chores, in sex, in being more nurturing.
Let me put an example of my own family in Europe. My cousin is married to a radical feminist, who is always saying he is a male chauvinist. My cousin has a very stressful job and he sleeps every day in a different city. He is tired, stressed and he says it. Meanwhile, his wife has a relaxing part-time job in the city they live. When my cousin goes home for the weekend, he makes half of the household chores. She justifies it saying that she believes in equality. But, when it comes to work, there is no equality.
“Many of them probably suspect you guys have high expectations of wives but low expectations of yourselves. ”
Pretty much.
I’m not sure why anyone would think that having a greater chance of paying alimony and and child support after the marriage makes them entitled to more from their wife during the marriage. Also not sure why who earns more should impact who does the chores.
How exactly is this “compensation” that the wife has to make calculated? If she earns 80% of what he earns does she do 20% more chores? And what if her job pays less but she works longer hours? How about if his job pays less but he works longer and harder. Say he’s a construction worker and she works in an air conditioned office?
I’m not sure why anyone would think that having a greater chance of paying alimony and and child support after the marriage makes them entitled to more from their wife during the marriage. Also not sure why who earns more should impact who does the chores.
Which is fine..but I think the zillion lurkers are probably curious too and many of them probably suspect you only want equality when it favors you, but not when it does not favor you. A typical point of view of American women (“Cafeteria feminism”).
Starviolet
Most women are capable of protecting and providing for themselves
Dialing 911 isn’t really “protecting yourself”, it’s calling up some men you don’t know to come protect you. FYI.
Gabriella, referring to the zillions of lurkers:
“Many of them probably suspect you guys have high expectations of wives but low expectations of yourselves. ”
Starviolet:
Pretty much.
Guess what? That particular femininist shaming doesn’t work very well any more. As institutionalized misandry pushes more men into off-the-books work or poverty, it won’t work at all.
Anonymous reader – I wasn’t referring to dialing 911, but if calling the police means that you can’t protect yourself then most men can’t either.
Call it feminist shaming if you want to, but it does seem as if some of you have a long list of things that you want from a spouse without offering much in return. You should be able to explain what value you add to the life of your spouse. If you can’t there’s a problem and there might be a reason that she is “unhaaapy” and sees you as unnecessary.
“Which is fine..but I think the zillion lurkers are probably curious too and many of them probably suspect you guys have high expectations of wives but low expectations of yourselves. If not..say otherwise.. because that is probably the impression you are giving.”
Not the case here, but I’m beginning to suspect that defending myself for the zillionth time from this sort of casual bigotry is not the wisest course of action. Denigrating men (again) will not get you closer to what you seek.
After decades of discussions about what a man owes his wife, if you haven’t formed an idea by now, that’s not what you’re really after. The reason this discussion has only gone one way is that it is an attempt to correct that imbalance. If the imbalance is of no concern to you, you’re in the wrong place.
Gabriella,
“Desiderius- I’d answer your question but I seem to have missed something because I don’t know what you are referring to.”
It’s from Ann Romney’s speech at the Republican National Convention. She’s attempting to pander to your sense of entitlement and superiority. Are you insulted by that?
Imnobody – I want to be treated fairly by government and my employer. For example I want to vote and own property, be paid and promoted fairly ect. That has nothing to do with how I expect to be treated in my relationships. A couple can set whatever terms they wan for their marriage. If a man can find a woman foolish enough to agree to “even though we both work, you do all the chores because if we divorce I might have to pay child support” then good for him.
Gabriella, I did attempt a reply above I think. Anyway, I wrote that a husband should consider his wife’s true needs.
My wife wanted another Samoyed dog. We went to Sydney yesterday to get her. This meant that my wife packed a picnic lunch, I took the car to the garage to get a minor problem fixed, and the following day, yesterday, I drove to Sydney from where we live. It was a round trip of about 360 miles. We don’t know Sydney well (it is a city of about 4 million people). I had to find my way into a particular suburb. For various reasons it was a real problem. Frankly, I was very nervous about having an accident. My wife became frightened and overwrought. I had to ignore her fear and feminine panic, pretend to a confidence I did not have, and by great good luck I found our way there.
I did this because I love my wife and want her to be happy. I was happy to do it because she is a good wife who does good things for me too.
In a cafe on the way home, I told her to get me another serviette. She told me to sod off, but got it anyway. That was my enjoying a little display of chauvinism.
I don’t have an idea what YOU guys think a husband owes his wife. I am fully aware what general society believes but that has nothing to do what you the commenters here believe.
Regarding politics- I don’t like to be pandered to. It feels manipulative and I don’t agree with all women so I don’t think we should even be considered a “voting block”.
Starviolet
Imnobody – I want to be treated fairly by government and my employer.
Most men want that, too, but we’ve learned not to expect it anymore.
imnobody,
Why do you suppose there are so many old women commenting on manosphere sites? Whatever reaction they fear from men (LOL these are American men we are talking about after all), have already escaped their generation. So what are they so scared of?! Now the younger women are the ones that will enter their 30s or will do so in a decade or so are the ones that might (big maybe still) actually be affected. They obviously aren’t commenting because life for a young woman is pretty good and they think the good times will last.
I find it truly pathetic that we can’t even keep a men only place even on the internet.
I looked for answers to my above questions in this otherwise wonderful and insightful article below, but alas:
http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2012/06/guide-to-birdwatching-in-manosphere.html
Some good excerpts from the article:
“…indeed, no flock of sheep can properly succeed without a sufficient number of wolves in its midst.”
“Soon, all the men are “kept in line” and with everything they write there will be a subconscious concern that the women will be offended. In a month or two, the men are posting less and less while the women are posting more and more, until the few women begin dominating the conversations of the many men.”
Hahahaha how true
Gabriella
I don’t have an idea what YOU guys think a husband owes his wife. I am fully aware what general society believes but that has nothing to do what you the commenters here believe
So?
I know the Scriptural answer to that question, but that answer (protection and provision) is something that is neither needed nor appreciated by women when they get them. In some ways, I have to think from what I read (both the Gregoireography and not) that you women really don’t have a need or desire for husbands at all, since the need or appreciation isn’t there for what a husband is legitimately owed a wife. However, there is much outside of that that women seem to expect and believe they are entitled to from their husbands, but have either no logical reason to expect at all, or is rare enough that they should be thankful for it to happen at all.
Gina tingles aren’t a requisite requirement of marriage.
Pingback: On Axe Biting | Things that We have Heard and Known
Nas: LOL
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13645074-how-can-i-be-your-lover-when-i-m-too-busy-being-your-mother – curious to see the reactions to this book, or at least the reactions to the *ideas* behind this book. I’m sick of our culture blaming everything on the man in the relationships. I almost don’t give a damn anymore if the man doesn’t do “his fair share”.
I hope nobody will object if an Australian passes on some comments by pundit Lawrence Auster on your Mrs Romney. He seems to mirror some of the objections to her behaviour that have been expressed here:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/023162.html
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/023163.html
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/023164.html
Desiserius,
I fully agree that Ann Romney’s speech, which I watched and heckled and mocked throughout, was absolutely ludicrous and insulting. Pure naked pandering and an insult to women’s intelligence. Very revealing of the cynical way in which the GOP looks down on the average woman. But it won’t work. I predict the gender gap will remain, with the GOP continuing to have trouble with female voters.
The women who do vote Republican will do so because they believe in fiscal conservatism or because they are “values voters” who oppose gay rights and abortion rights, not because Ann Romney said, “Rah, rah, I love women.”
Imnobody at 1005 p.m.,
I basically agree with you that a wife who earns less because she works less hours and/or has a less stressful job should pick up the slack by taking on more at home in terms of child care and home care and personal tasks. I wouldn’t throw sex in there though because I think sex should be mutual, not just a transactional exchange, but I think that married people should make a good faith effort to please each other sexually.
This is why I have always believed that it is very important when choosing a husband to aim for economic equality or economic superiority, if you care about being competitive in the workplace and not feeling like a servant at home.
I know the Scriptural answer to that question, but that answer (protection and provision) is something that is neither needed nor appreciated by women when they get them
And why should they appreciate it? The government does those things for them for “free”. Who needs a man?
Maybe the government should try to meet a man’s needs for free. Read into that what you will.
Ann Romney’s pandering is identical to Dem’s pandering.
The earlier question remains. Aren’t women insulted/ashamed that this type of pandering, by both parties, works on them? They view women as simultaneously superwoman and helpless idiot. And women lap it up because it gives beta-worship with alpha-disqualification.
In short, the GOP learned that pathetic approach toward women from watching the Dems pander.
RTP,
It bother me. I get political pamphlet’s in the mail all the time regarding “women’s issues”. Each time is pisses me off. These pamphlets are pure hamster food, though and the politics toward women obviously works. When the hamster is happy, the cognitive dissonance is easy to dismiss.
They view women as simultaneously superwoman and helpless idiot
The fact that women see no contradiction is telling, isn’t it?
Interesting discussion with DH…
First of all, “sex = something wives give to husbands” isn’t just cultural, it’s in out biology. Women can get laid much easier than men but are less willing to jump at all these opportunities. Sex is indeed usually something that goes from woman to man, our sexuality is not alike.
Marrying a woman for sex (among other things!) is not an evil, misogynistic strategy at all. Sex is rather important, and going out every day to get it can be taxing. Having it with a gf can be ok, but marriage as it used to be ads more responsibility into the relationship. A man doesn’t marry a woman just for sex. Unless he’s dumb, he carefully chooses a wife for her loyalty, nice character and good attitude towards him. A wife isn’t really just a highly paid whore (although she can be, if she doesn’t care about her husband and only sleeps with him for the money).
When it comes to marriage as a contract, if she enters a contract where it says “I promise to give sex whenever he wants it and if he takes it, I promise not to call it a rape”, then calling it a rape shouldn’t result in a conviction. She signed up for it. Same goes for a guy who signed up for alimony and supporting her. Ideally, of course, a relationship shouldn’t be so transactional. But this isn’t a mere relationship, this is a marriage, with the added legal aspect. The legal aspect is there whether your relationship is wonderfully mutual or transactional. I feel the relationship itself and the legal contract shouldn’t be confused.
…although in a really good, close relationship with equal relationship-sex drives, sex doesn’t feel like it’s going from woman to man. It will actually go both ways equally.
@Starviolet
If a woman can find a man foolish enough to agree to “even though you work in a stressing feel and I work in a relaxing part-time job, we split the chores equally because I believe in equality” then good for her. She has found a chump and a slave.
If you are looking for men like this here, you are in the wrong forum. My cousin is one of these chumps but he is married. Sorry.
Equality is equality. Equality is doing the same amount of work regardless if this work is inside home or outside house. Equality is having the same probability of receiving custody, for example.
Women like Starviolet think equality means: “for the things women have it better, I want to keep things as they are, for the things men have it better, I want equality”.
Men have got along with this so-called “equality” for decades, but they are awakening and there is no turning back. You can’t stop the tide with shaming language and trying to word thing to hide the obvious.
@Nas
You are so right. Women always want to enter to men’s spaces, instead of going to the spaces women have created. They pull it off by claiming discrimination. They have not left a space in society where men can speak between them without women’s interference.
They have to police the slaves, you know. They can’t left men having free thoughts. They could have ideas of freedom.
When women enter a men’s space, they often demand special treatment. Or they get offended by things men say. Or they derail the discussion with fallacies and shaming language. Or they bring the discussion to their private life (“All women are not this way because I have a husband, I give him blowjobs 5 times a day, I cook him better than a French chef, I keep my house tidy an neat like the one in Desperate Housewives, I am a tigress in the bed and a lady in the street, I praise him before his colleagues and I am the perfect wife, lover and mother”). Good luck to disprove that (the husband never gets to say his opinion).
Very soon, the quality of the discussion drops dramatically. What once was a discussion about general societal trends, it is now a discussion about the “lady”, her opinions and her life. What once was a discussion about abstract arguments is now a chat with shaming language, fallacies, ad-hominem attacks, anecdote. What was a discussion that proceeded linearly is now a circular discusion of this kind:
Lady: Says feminist idea I (which has been disproved once and again by science and by the manosphere).
Other people: Says argument A which disproves I (argument that we all know so it doesn’t add anything to the discussion).
Lady: Distorts argument A in order to attack it (strawman fallacy). Repeats idea I
Other people: Point out the distortion of the argument A.
Lady: Ignores argument A. Repeats idea I.
Other people: Present argument B, C, D against idea I.
Lady: Distorts the arguments she can, ignore others and tell that idea I is true in her life because “my husband and I…
Other people: Try to argue logically with lady.
Lady: Does not concede any point, does not agree with any argument she does not want to agree, uses veiled shaming language, etc. Repeats and repeats idea I
At the end of the day, after much back and forth, nothing has been achieved. Idea I is completely disproved in the manosphere. Arguments A, B, C, D are known. The “lady” has not changed her mind but it has managed to get the discussion to become about her and to stop people have the meaningful discussion they would have had if she hasn’t appeared.
Imnobody – I don’t think that equality as required by the government and employers should necessarily extend to marriage. I don’t expect my husband to be carefully calculating my work and his work to make sure that we both contribute exactly the same amount. That attitude is more competitive than cooperative. In a marriage there is a lot of give and take and sometimes one person will be working harder than the other. When both people try to treat each other fairly (fair and equal are not always the same) then it will generally balance out. I also don’t see how a man can expect to lead and have his leadership respected when is so focused on making sure that he doesn’t do more work than his wife.
Someone, needs to remind Gabriella about Dalrock, 7man, and CL’s rule about holes
Starviolet
Imnobody – I don’t think that equality as required by the government and employers should necessarily extend to marriage. I don’t expect my husband to be carefully calculating my work and his work to make sure that we both contribute exactly the same amount.
But that brings up the reverse question: do you reserve to yourself the privilege of carefully calculating his work and your work in order to make sure he’s contributing “enough”, for your definition of “enough”?
And this is an actual husband; you are married or have been married, correct?
Parentheticaly, the equality mandated by government in employee situations has been extended to marriage in some important ways already. I doubt you object to any of them, frankly.
Starviolet again:
I also don’t see how a man can expect to lead and have his leadership respected when is so focused on making sure that he doesn’t do more work than his wife.
Cute strawman. Not useful or relevant, but cute.
@imnobody —
It’s more troubling that that. Gabriella has heard the best of the best Christian arguments on these issues. She teaches her daughters to not be slutty. She believes the bible. She is not an obvious troll like some I won’t name. She has some level of integrity and confidence, though maybe not quite as doctrinally sound as one of the other women that post here.
And yet… lay 1 Cor 7 on the table and her brain seems to shut down. She suddenly starts talking about happiness… she starts sounding like she’d keep constant score on who’s done what in her relationships and whether or not her husband has qualified for sex at any given point. Then she goes into full teacher/moralizer/prophet mode rebuking us for not spelling out what husbands can actually give their wives. (Oh yeah… like women need men. Hrumph!) If she works full time just like him… ha! Why on earth should she sex him up? Why?! I can’t think of any reasons…. Can you…? I mean seriously. What has a man done for any woman *lately*?
This is no different than the line of thinking that my wife uses who is self-confessed feminist and in open rebellion. (And Gabriella seemed like such a nice girl….) I’m not sure how to respond to this. It’s not just Gabriella. More respectable/thoughtful/spiritual women than her have this same chain reaction in their heads that goes off whenever the feminine psych game is challenged. It makes me think… there is no middle ground. You can’t make peace with this. You can never relax or be friends or be equals with a person like this. You either avoid them or dominate them. There’s no other option.
It’s very disillusioning. I wasn’t raised to think this way.
DH (Delusional Hatred?),
“I fully agree that Ann Romney’s speech, which I watched and heckled and mocked throughout, was absolutely ludicrous and insulting. Pure naked pandering and an insult to women’s intelligence. Very revealing of the cynical way in which the GOP looks down on the average woman. But it won’t work. I predict the gender gap will remain, with the GOP continuing to have trouble with female voters.
The women who do vote Republican will do so because they believe in fiscal conservatism or because they are “values voters” who oppose gay rights and abortion rights, not because Ann Romney said, “Rah, rah, I love women.””
One of the (good) reasons people try to transcend hatred is that it really gets in the way of self-awareness/character development if overindulged. Problems are blamed on others while one’s own soul rots from neglect, causing one to need greater and greater hatred hits to get the same “high”.
I’m using third person here to avoid the defense mechanisms/counterattacks that second person would trigger, or the reflexive revulsion that would result from first, but all three persons are guilty of, and suffer from, this behavior. It is a dis-grace.
@Some Guy
You can’t make peace with this. You can never relax or be friends or be equals with a person like this. You either avoid them or dominate them. There’s no other option. It’s very disillusioning.
Yes, it is very disillusioning but it is true, sign of our decadent times. Christian American women have similar ideas to feminist ones. They only twist the Scripture to make the texts say what they want to say. It is the ultimate Christian Rationalization Hamster. They can use 1 Cor 7 to justify that it’s the man who has to submit to the woman (although they will be careful not to word it this way).
RTP,
“In short, the GOP learned that pathetic approach toward women from watching the Dems pander.”
It works because female self-awareness has been short-circuited by the pre-packaged 15-minute hates feminism has provided them nearly from birth.
She teaches her daughters to not be slutty.
Except she doesn’t. She teaches them in such a way that she doesn’t have to confront her own slutty past properly (i.e. you can’t erase the damage done as with a money debt, as she believes) and thus doesn’t really teach them as well as she might.
She won’t quite swallow the red pill, as it were, because then she would have to look at herself in a harsher light than she wants to. She is trying to have it both ways, also known as eating her cake and having it too.
I’m really at a loss as to why this apparently gets a pass around here, and why Gabriella is allowed to blather on about herself all day, waffling and back-pedalling and bringing down the conversation. Everywhere she goes the thread derails into an endless wank-fest about her issues.
Anonymous Reader – No, I don’t carefully calculate whether or not my husband ( yes I’m married) is contributing “enough” either. But then his contributions and value would be obvious to a blind man.
I don’t object to assets being split down the middle during a divorce if that is what you were referring to.
I personally would find it hard to respect a leader who was all about making sure that he wasn’t working too hard and expecting his wife to “compensate” him for laws that are outside of her control, but you can call it a cute straw an if you want.
If you’re finding happiness outside of how Scripture commands you to live, what kind of happiness is it?
Answer it/don’t answer it. Just know.
I personally would find it hard to respect a leader who was all about making sure that he wasn’t working too hard and expecting his wife to “compensate” him for laws that are outside of her control, but you can call it a cute straw an if you want.
The key words here are “all about”. So how many guys do you know are all about keeping the ledger level? I do think most guys have more balanced personalities than that.
Looks like 2 days of dialog with the ladies accomplishes nothing as is what to be expected. The end of feminism will not involve the enlightment or “changing of heart” of the woman.
I have said before women do not have the capacity to love but they do gina tingle and it is love to them and this comment is what it looks like in practice.
As far as emotional need- I just want my husband to be in-love with me. Not love me in the action verb sense (though that is nice)..but to actually feel infatuated with me. I want his heart to still race sometimes when he is with me. I want his eyes to light up when he talks about me to his friends. I want him to ENJOY my company.
If he does not feel infatuated with me I want him to help me understand why and give me ideas on how to get that loving feeling back.
If he feels deeply and madly in-love with me then I will be happy. Though I do not mean to imply THAT BEING HAPPY IS REQUIRED for me to be a good and faithful wife. It is a pretty nice bonus though.
You cannot argue or debate with that. A man has got to understand there is no debate (game anyone). The solution is right front of us and is against all conventioanal wisdom making it invisible to anyone that cannot understand the nature of women.
One of mankind’s oldest known stories, the Epic of Gilgamesh, involves a hairy wildman, Enkidu, who is tamed and civilized by Shamhat, the temple prostitute.
As it happens, the wildman Enkidu was created by the gods to overthrow the wicked government of Gilgamesh, whose chief crime is that he violates brides on their wedding night.
Unfortunately, Enkidu fails in his attempt to overthrow Gilgamesh, ends up becoming his friend, and goes off on a Middle Eastern military adventure at Gilgamesh’s behest… and is killed.
Some things never change.
Starviolet
Anonymous Reader – No, I don’t carefully calculate whether or not my husband ( yes I’m married) is contributing “enough” either. But then his contributions and value would be obvious to a blind man.
And yet you have no problem accusing men whom you do not even know of “keeping score” in that manner. That’s interesting, isn’t it?
I don’t object to assets being split down the middle during a divorce if that is what you were referring to.
If a woman physically attacks her husband with blunt objects or knives, etc., and the fight becomes so loud that the neighbors call the police, whom should be arrested at the scene?
I personally would find it hard to respect a leader who was all about making sure that he wasn’t working too hard and expecting his wife to “compensate” him for laws that are outside of her control, but you can call it a cute straw an if you want.
How many men do you know who are like this? How many men on this site have clearly stated that this is a good way to live? I don’t see it. What I see is that you have made up an imaginary man in your head, and you are busy bashing him. Perhaps you should review this popular logical fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Women come on to this site and use the phraseology that gets the “you go grlll” response from their friends. Well here, words have meanings and logic is applied to the meanings of those words. Then the problems begin.
Some advice, at this site affirmation ( respect in our terms) is not just given, it is earned.
This is getting ugly. However, I think Cane Caldo’s most recent post does a good job of hashing out some of these questions reasonably and in line with Christian truth. Balance is very tricky to find in these conversations. Wow.
ballista74 said:”It’s a typical feminist gambit. Ramp things up to the most extreme levels and then portray that as the normal that is being advocated. Mizz Gregoire’s latest hit piece on Christian Biblical submission is an excellent example of it being applied, especially since that’s one of the first stops. ”
My thoughts exactly. Same thing you’ll get when the topic of abortion comes up. “You’d deny an abortion to a woman who is raped or whose life is in danger”? Which totally ignores the fact that these are the vast minority of abortions. Same thing with homosexuals, and countless other special interest groups.
That post should not have been in Wifey Wednesday, more like Feminist Friday or Turd Tuesday.
@greyghost
Tingles über Alles
This is so true. PUAs know it. Now everybody knows it.
Anonymous Reader
And yet you have no problem accusing men whom you do not even know of “keeping score” in that manner. That’s interesting, isn’t it?
imnobody said upthread “Since the situation is not equal, the woman has to compensate by giving more to the relationship: in household chores, in sex, in being more nurturing.” That sounds like keeping score to me, so I don’t see how I’ve accused him of anything that he hasn’t admitted to.
If a woman is attacking someone with blunt objects and knives then of course she should be arrested. Why do you ask? Are men being bludgeoned, stabbed and then arrested?
What I see is that you have made up an imaginary man in your head, and you are busy bashing him. Perhaps you should review this popular logical fallacy:
I haven’t made up am man in my head, I’ve responded to what Imnobody wrote.
…by unconditionally offering her body and emotional commitment to him, if I’m not mistaken. Enkidu bangs her silly and loses whatever amount of pent-up aggression that dwelled inside him. This approach is, of course, markedly different from a popular notion in Victorian cultures, namely that “women civilize men” by shutting their legs and loudly demanding that all the slacking manboys man up or go without pussy.
CL
“I’m really at a loss as to why this apparently gets a pass around here, and why Gabriella is allowed to blather on about herself all day, waffling and back-pedalling and bringing down the conversation. Everywhere she goes the thread derails into an endless wank-fest about her issues.”
Why don’t you ignore her? I’ve had a few snarky and childish comments directed at me since I’ve been here. I wasn’t interested in that kind of conversation so I ignored the poster until he spoke like a grown up. It isn’t that hard to avoid this, if this is what you feel is happening.
Some guy,
“You either avoid them or dominate them. There’s no other option.
It’s very disillusioning. I wasn’t raised to think this way.”
Positive-sum games (we were raised to seek/develop them) are usually optimal (the ideal), but sometimes zero-sum or even negative-sum games (dominance games are in this category) are necessary (the real). The tit-for-tat strategy is a useful model for the necessary mix.
A healthy woman will start with the trust herself, showing she understands tit-for-tat, and test to see how you are at building positive-sum interactions, but at some point she’ll also (shit) test to see if you can retaliate when necessary.
Where this gets unhealthy is if she opens with suspicion (the opposite of trust), or tests for the ability to retaliate/dominate too often, as that ability does appeal to her base attractors. A good woman will have developed her character beyond the base, but a steady diet of hate/suspicion, such as that provided by second-wave feminism, often impedes that development.
A husband is to be the Protector, Provider, and the Profit/Priest of his family (h/t Voddie Bacham). Those are his “contributions” in feminist speak. That is why he is called to lead. He is ultimately responsible for the protection and provision of his family. He is responsible for their careful shepherding toward a more godly life. If that doesn’t seem “enough,” then you have little understanding of what that entails.
Just as he cannot absolve his self from those obligations or make them conditional based on his wife’s actions, a woman cannot absolve her self from the commands of God.
I hate you, auto-correct. “Profit” = “Prophet”
Somebody: I didn’t say I disagreed with that verse. I don’t withhold. It’s a sin.
Rock Throwing Peasant – I agree with your post for the most part. The problem is that most women can protect and provide for themselves, and in fact continue to provide for their families after they are married. What does “shepherding them towards a more Godly life” entail?
Nas: +1
> I think the zillion lurkers are probably curious too
You wish. Delusionally. “Zillion” puts you up in the megalomaniac (or mega-something) category.
IOW, we’re really hoping to see your hamsterwheel throw a bearing, sooner rather than later.
Maybe we’ll be briefly curious gawking at the resultant wreckage as we drive by, but don’t count on it. We may just be pissed off that you backed up traffic for miles.
RTP:
This is very true. The only things a man legitimately owes a wife are protection, provision, and headship. As ballista said above, and Starviolet said immediately above, most women don’t want those things when a man provides them.
Star: you claim that most women can protect and provide for themselves, and continue doing so after marriage. But are women designed for this? Does their taking on those burdens make those women content or happy?
Shepherding women to a more Godly life entails determining her spiritual condition, leading her in prayer and devotions, and requiring her to submit to her husband.
Star’s and Gabby’s attitude toward marriage is clear. She doesn’t want or need a man’s protection or provision. She sees no need for biblical submission to a man as head. Their attitude is that a man is there to court her, to validate and affirm her, to give her attention, to use his status to elevate hers, and to entertain her. He is a mere accessory to her. He is there to be used, a tool, a utensil. To women like Star and Gabby, a man must show her that he adds to her life through his money, his status, his looks and his entertainment value. But note: None of these things are appropriate things a man is to give a woman.
@Desiderius —
Yes… I’ve noticed that tit-for-tat does not work. Our family just starts to run down. Assuming a rational mindset on the part of the woman… it should work. But the first tat you lay down will bring the full accounting of everything you’ve ever done or not done.
I now make sure that the Gabriella style tizzy-of-great-confusion is met with a swift rebuke every time it rears its ugly head. If my opinion is asked on a significant issue, I think… speak… and then move on. I don’t bother to consult her feelings– I already know what her feelings are. If she’s just complaining… this I take as begging for a neg. Across the board… I do the opposite of what a “sensitive” guy would do… and it seems to calm her down. We experience moments of peace occasionally whereas before we’d just go round and round on the hamster wheel for hours at a time.
Early in the process, I would go out of the way to give 110% because I was expecting more from her. This got feedback of “wow, you’re really manning up” with a hint of admiration. (I was making it “easy” to submit. Yea me.) But in a week or two it became hateful and resentful… “why don’t you man up again like you did two weeks ago?”
The “manning up” that women think they want has a very bad effect on them. In practice… they want Heathcliff, not Edgar. They only really respond to David Collard’s “bit of the mongrel.” Maybe it’s different once they’re tamed, I don’t know….
(This is not game-to-get-into-her-pants. This is merely game-to-get-some-semblance-of functionality. If I pushed hard, I expect I’d be told that sex with me would be rape. When she changes her mind about that, I won’t be told… I’ll be resented for not initiating.)
It was always this way, for Cassandra.
CL, When she gets derailed it’s because other women set out for that purpose; some through how they raise their sons; some by extracting commitment from men they are not married to; some by comments on blogs.
“Which is fine..but I think the zillion lurkers are probably curious too and many of them probably suspect you guys have high expectations of wives but low expectations of yourselves. If not..say otherwise.. because that is probably the impression you are giving.”
Men are seeking faithful wives, in both senses of the word. The Latin is fides, from which we get the word fidelity, but the Greek is pistis, which denotes trust. There is a reason the two go together.
Suspicion without cause is the opposite of the trust part of faith. It suggests that you’d be a bad bet for fidelity, the other part, that the particular physiology of the male makes a primary consideration.
Starviolet you are heaven on earth. I recommend that no man here waste commitment or love on this woman. She’s got that covered dawg. Take your love and commitment to a woman that needs it (worthy is too honest and mean spirited). She can’t appreciate it as an immersed in femenism woman in todays world. But one thing is sure Starviolet doesn’t need your stinking commitment and damn sure see no need to degrade herself and appreciate something so needless and oppresive to women.
Elspeth,
“This is getting ugly. However, I think Cane Caldo’s most recent post does a good job of hashing out some of these questions reasonably and in line with Christian truth. Balance is very tricky to find in these conversations. Wow.”
The “innocent question” ploy is a common passive-aggressive power play, as is the requirement that male duties must be discussed whenever female duties are raised, often accompanied by the “I wouldn’t want a man who is always keeping score.” The mind reels at that combination.
Men have to learn to stand up to these things.
Hashing out questions can’t happen until that does.
Deti you are becoming a wise old man by the minute. You beat me to the punch but a good observation is a good observation no matter. The bottom line is a whole lot of todays women are not worthy of a mans love. Infact there is a herd driven status race among women to make themselves unworthy and be proud of it. So much so we will have laws of misandry to ensure we honor and love unworthy women.
And yes, it will be ugly until we find our feet. You can help us find them, or help the feminists keep us off balance. Your choice.
@Desiderius
Except when it isn’t. For example: when someone passively asks a question, and then gets attacked by others with the intent to bring out aggression, and thereby bring discredit onto the questioner. Gabriella isn’t the feminist here. She’s not the hedonist, either.
It seems to be you that is being wielded by the feminists here to keep any sense from getting righted.
> Women can get laid much easier than men
I keep hearing this claim being made, but I don’t exactly see women proving it. Anybody else?
All the complaints from women about a Man Shortage, that there are No Good Men, all the angst from the Lonely Feminist Spinsters (and their diverse sisters), all the Slut Walkers demanding the “right” (opportunity?) to give the cow away for free, all the Hymowitz’s and Bennets ordering men to Man Up — they all seem to argue women are having a hell of a time even getting a guy to look at them, nevermind the rest. That’s what happens when even that infernal “male gaze” has been thoroughly deconstructed, problematized, pathologized, criminalized, and mindfucked out of existence (as zed more or less put it), poisoning the well at the wellhead, so to speak, as feminism did long ago.
That claim is just an article of feminist faith we’re all supposed to believe in. That men need women more than women need men. When all the testimony from women is that men (what the hell is wrong w/them?) aren’t needing women enough.
And then, when women’s own bogus claim turns out not to be true, it has to be due to the shortcomings of men for not upholding the religion. It’s really just another threat that you’ll throw a tantrum and go on another stupid Pussy Riot or something if men don’t behave properly.
What does “shepherding them towards a more Godly life” entail?
Discipling them, instructing them, “washing them” so they appear unblemished before all on earth. For example, has your father or husband said, “Your prayer is unfocused. I have a preferred method that follows the best model of prayer we know, the Lord’s Prayer. A prayer should Acknowledge God’s greatness, show Contrition for specific sins (and name them), give Thanks for God’s many blessings, and Supplicate our needs to our Master. ACTS.”
He should lead devotions in your house. Start with a prayer, recite from a Catechism and have others read the supporting Scripture, read a passage from the Bible and offer guidance or employ the Socratic dialogue so others can learn more from it.
Those are a couple examples that come to mind.
Also, keep in mind, when you say, “I can provide that for myself,” it is irrelevant. Those are his duties and what God commands. That you want to reject or supersede them only demonstrates you are unwilling to follow God’s instruction. Your husband is still accountable. Even if he abdicates, you are still obligated to act as God commands wives to act. You are not excused from your duties anymore than if you were married to a non-believer (1 Peter 3:1).
Deti – I don’t think that protecting and providing for herself necessarily makes a woman more content or happy. That doesn’t change the fact that most married men have wives that work to support the family because the man cannot support the family alone. Thankfully Im not married to the average man. I don’t work outside of home ( well I take the occasional freelance job to keep my skillset relevant) and my husband pays all the bills. He is the undisputed head of our household and he pays the costs to be the boss. A lot of men can’t do that and then expect the same respect as a man who can because they have a penis. Unsurprisingly most of their wives don’t give them that respect.
Desi:
You listed as common passive aggressive argumentation plays:
1. The “innocent question” strategy
2. The “equal time” ploy. This is always presented as “If we’re going to talk about women’s shortcomings, we must also talk about men’s flaws. IOW, I will point out your flaws to shame you into accepting mine.”
3. The “keeping score” ploy.
There are also:
4. The “tit for tat” strategy (whatever you do to me, I’ll do back to you, because it has to be fair and even).
5. The strawman strategy (advancing arguments not made and then refuting them
6. The extreme example. (Submission means the woman is a doormat, the man is a tyrant.)
7. The false dichotomy (if he’s not leading me by bringing the tingle-inducing asshole dominance, he’s a spineless wimp who can’t lead. I want a divorce!)
8. The “no true Scotsman” argument (if he were a REAL man, he’d lead me and do what I want!)
9. Solipsism (if I haven’t seen it or my friends haven’t seen it or experienced it, it does not exist)
@ Star:
“my husband pays all the bills. He is the undisputed head of our household and he pays the costs to be the boss. A lot of men can’t do that and then expect the same respect as a man who can because they have a penis. Unsurprisingly most of their wives don’t give them that respect.”
That’s the difference between you and me. You believe a husband has to EARN respect and submission. Ephesians 5 says he doesn’t. He is entitled to that respect not because you decide he is or because of the things he does or is able to do; but because God put him into that position as your husband. He deserves that respect simply because he is your husband.
And—he is not biblically required to lead you. He is only biblically required to LOVE you. You , on the other hand, are biblically required to submit to him and respect him.
Anonymous Reader
And yet you have no problem accusing men whom you do not even know of “keeping score” in that manner. That’s interesting, isn’t it?
Starviolet:
imnobody said upthread “Since the situation is not equal, the woman has to compensate by giving more to the relationship: in household chores, in sex, in being more nurturing.” That sounds like keeping score to me, so I don’t see how I’ve accused him of anything that he hasn’t admitted to.
We’ll just have to disagree on this. It doesn’t look like scorekeeping, but part of the give and take that any marriage contains. There’s a lot of focus on “fairness” in modern world discussions of marriage, where each person is expected to give 50% and anything more than that is an imposition. That’s not a plan that works in the long run.
If a woman is attacking someone with blunt objects and knives then of course she should be arrested. Why do you ask? Are men being bludgeoned, stabbed and then arrested?
In some cases, yes, that has happened. Laws on domestic violence over the last 30 years often contain the implicit assumption that men are beasts /oppressors and women are angels/victims. It’s part of that “equality” that can be seen in the workplace, extended into the home. Shouting can be considered DV. So can withholding money. So if a woman and her husband have a loud argument about money and he shouts at her, stating that she spends too much and he won’t be allowing her to buy more things out of the joint account, she could accuse him of DV and have him arrested. The reverse is not the case. “Equality” is an interesting concept in the modern world.
I wrote:
What I see is that you have made up an imaginary man in your head, and you are busy bashing him. Perhaps you should review this popular logical fallacy:
Starviolet:
I haven’t made up am man in my head, I’ve responded to what Imnobody wrote.
Ok, that’s how you see it. To me it looks like just another round of “Men Bad! Bad Men!”, which is a very typical female response to any discussions of the shortcomings, or duties, of women.
CL says:
August 30, 2012 at 10:00 am
THere is a white-knight christian male crew on this website who look up to people like Gregorie, Driscoll, and sarah walsh. This blog and that laughable marriedmancuckoldlife are the entry points for a lot of wimpy christian men into the manosphere.
The beta still runs deep in the comment section here at Dalrocks.
Damn Star. That comment you last made was a doosie. Just made every man that has ever posted on this blog point for him a hundred times. The pussy worshipping churchian will feel differently of course
greyghost
Starviolet you are heaven on earth.
Thank you, you are so kind.
I recommend that no man here waste commitment or love on this woman. She’s got that covered dawg. Take your love and commitment to a woman that needs it (worthy is too honest and mean spirited).
Oh wait. You were just being sarcastic. *cries* Thankfully I don’t need the love or commitment of any man here. I am already blessed with a husband.
She can’t appreciate it as an immersed in femenism woman in todays world. But one thing is sure Starviolet doesn’t need your stinking commitment and damn sure see no need to degrade herself and appreciate something so needless and oppresive to women.
I am not oppressed thanks. I do deeply appreciate what my husband does for his family in general and me in particular, and I make sure to show that. That doesn’t change the fact that most wives provide for their families right alongside their husbands. This is one of the reasons that wives become “unhaaaapy” and start wanting things that most men are not designed to provide (endless romance, emotional needs ect). Men are designed to protect and provide. Most men cannot provide alone and protection is easy to come by in a not so dangerous world. Don’t know why you’re mad at me. None of that is my fault,
That’s the difference between you and me. You believe a husband has to EARN respect and submission. Ephesians 5 says he doesn’t. He is entitled to that respect not because you decide he is or because of the things he does or is able to do; but because God put him into that position as your husband. He deserves that respect simply because he is your husband.
Deti,
I fully agree with you but there is a difference between paying a man respect and a man who has earned it. A woman that gives respect to a man who has earned it will do it very naturally. Nothing will have to be forced and there will be no (or very little) slipping away from the respect. Paying a man respect because he is your husband, while utterly right and should always be striven for, is incredibly difficult and the testing will come out more often and more severely.
I don’t tell you this to argue at all, a woman should respect her husband, bottom line. I only wish to inform of the difference. I am NOT saying a woman gets a free pass for slipping in her ability to pay respect. Again, I am only informing.
Anonymous Reader
We’ll just have to disagree on this. It doesn’t look like scorekeeping, but part of the give and take that any marriage contains. There’s a lot of focus on “fairness” in modern world discussions of marriage, where each person is expected to give 50% and anything more than that is an imposition. That’s not a plan that works in the long run.
Did you read Iamnobody’s comment at 8:26 am and the ones that preceded it? A 50/50 equal split was exactly what he seemed to be proposing. I agree that it doesn’t work in the long run. As I said upthread, fair and equal are not necessarily the same thing and sometimes one person will be working harder than the other person in the marriage.
I don’t know a lot about domestic violence laws, but if what you’ve said is true that is certainly a serious problem.
deti –
That’s the difference between you and me. You believe a husband has to EARN respect and submission. Ephesians 5 says he doesn’t. He is entitled to that respect not because you decide he is or because of the things he does or is able to do; but because God put him into that position as your husband. He deserves that respect simply because he is your husband.
And—he is not biblically required to lead you. He is only biblically required to LOVE you. You , on the other hand, are biblically required to submit to him and respect him.
I agree that when you marry a man you owe him your respect. That doesn’t change the fact that a man who cannot provide for his family is not likely to respected highly by me, by most women, or by my father.
Stingray
I fully agree with you but there is a difference between paying a man respect and a man who has earned it. A woman that gives respect to a man who has earned it will do it very naturally. Nothing will have to be forced and there will be no (or very little) slipping away from the respect. Paying a man respect because he is your husband, while utterly right and should always be striven for, is incredibly difficult and the testing will come out more often and more severely.
You’ve pretty much nailed it. My husband has never had to demand respect, game me, or any other such nonsense. He is the type of man that I cannot help but feel respect for. I am called to sumbit no matter what, but he has made it easy for me. A lot of men make submitting difficult because deep down the woman knows that the man is only being respected because of the command of God, not because of anything that he’s done or because of who he is. Even if I were an atheist, who my husband is, is worthy of a lot of respect.
@ Sting:
Agreed. It’s easier for a woman to respect a man when he has earned or is earning it. And the way he earns it is dominance in some form or fashion.
Women have to be taught and trained into biblical submission. Most women aren’t now. Most women will respect only those men who earn it, and they have to earn it every day.
@ deti- there was a time when more men were worthy of respect and they received it, not just from their wives but from women as a group. The average man today isn’t as respectable as the men of my father’s and grandfather’s generation.
Star:
Thanks for your response to me. This proves in spades what men are saying here and elsewhere throughout the manosphere.
At bottom, your response is simply this: “I respect my husband ONLY because he has earned it, not because he is my husband. And he earns my respect by making it so I don’t have to work outside the home, and giving me the stuff I want and need, and doing what I think he should do, and doing what I want him to do.”
That’s it, in a nutshell. And from the horse’s mouth too. Women respect and love men not because of who the men are, but for what men can do for them.
A wife respects a husband not because of the man he is, but for what he does for her.
A wife respects a husband not because of who he is, but because he does what she wants him to do FOR HER.
So therefore, the converse must be true:
If he is unable to do for her what she wants, then he is not entitled to respect and in fact she is entitled to disrespect him.
If he does not do what she wants, then the husband is not entitled to respect and in fact she is entitled to disrespect him.
It’s good to finally hear it, Star. Thanks for confirming what we’ve long suspected—and in your own words, too.
This is depressing. Because I know at bottom, this is true. I know at her core, this is how my wife probably feels about me, too. I know deep down that if I weren’t the sole breadwinner in my home, my wife would probably be divorcing me now or shit testing me within an inch of my life. I know at their core, this is about how nearly all wives feel about their husbands.
And yet, not a single post, a single discussion has been made about whether WOMEN are worthy of respect. Because women today isn’t respectable as the women of my mother’s and grandmother’s generation.
You’ve made a pretty good distraction making our points for us, you are living proof of the useless anglo-woman. But be careful of who you say is not worthy of respect in this modern age, since you probably aren’t.
Also lol at the complaints earlier about women taking offense to men’s view of marriage based on the utility of the wife followed by this gem:
“That doesn’t change the fact that a man who cannot provide for his family is not likely to respected highly by me, by most women, or by my father. ”
As has been said before. A man only exists to a woman on the basis of utility. Treat them the same way gentlemen.
“Most women will respect only those men who earn it, and they have to earn it every day.”
This is to their shame. Women are that way because they are insatiable, shameless, and can reason their way out of any biblical injunction that is leveled at them. It is even politically incorrect to enjoin them to behave any different. The church complies with this by buttressing their every whim with theological misdirection.
“The average man today isn’t as respectable as the men of my father’s and grandfather’s generation.”
And the average woman today is incapable of showing respect even to a perfect man that has laid His life down for them.
deti –
At bottom, your response is simply this: “I respect my husband ONLY because he has earned it, not because he is my husband. And he earns my respect by making it so I don’t have to work outside the home, and giving me the stuff I want and need, and doing what I think he should do, and doing what I want him to do.”
And speaking of strawmen…. This is not what I said. Nice try though. I respected my husband before I married him, before we dated, before he did anything for me other than exist as a respectable man. Lots of other people respect him too, and yet he doesn’t do anything for them either. There is something about a respectable man. Go figure.
I don’t think you understand what a strawman is, up your game. You aren’t worthy of respect otherwise.
I am not saying what any of you think I am saying but I am done ‘splainin.
“I have no rebuttal so I am pretending I’ve won the discussion” (Whatever ‘won’ means to my broken mind).
k bye!
Star:
“There was a time when more men were worthy of respect and they received it, not just from their wives but from women as a group. The average man today isn’t as respectable as the men of my father’s and grandfather’s generation.”
Yep. And during that same time, women were more worthy of love and commitment and protection. And they received it, not just from their husbands but from men as a group. The average woman today isn’t nearly as respectable as the women of my mother’s and grandmothers’ generations.
And just how unworthy are such women? Let me count the ways.
–she is about 40 pounds overweight and slovenly, yet struts around in clothes 2 sizes too small and thinks she is as hot as a Victoria’s Secret model.
–she is sexually promiscuous and allows herself to be ridden like the town bike.
–she dresses for shit. She wears t-shirts, flip flops and sweatpants.
–she’s unpleasant, pessimistic, and caustic.
–she complains and nags constantly.
–she can’t cook.
–she thinks her travels, her college degree and her job make her “sexy” and attractive.
–she tells boring, stupid stories and thinks she is “witty”, and that this makes her attractive.
–she talks constantly about the stupidest things.
–she thinks she is an expert on politics after watching an hour or two on MSNBC.
deti says:
August 30, 2012 at 1:36 pm
Yes, but starviolet and gabriella aren’t THOSE women, the WRONG kind of women.
NOT ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT DETI. Maybe you should learn to pick them better.
Allow me:
I respect my husband …right now.
As soon as that worldly respect falters, you will detest him because that is what you are resting your submission on, not God’s command.
Deti,
You said that a woman will respect a man for what he does not by who he is. I am going to ask this and leave the “for her” part out (not because I disagree with this but because my question doesn’t have to do with this part of it): Is not who a man is defined by what he does? I don’t care about the for her part, I’m just talking in general. How does one know who a man is without observing what he does?
Star:
I’m going to quote back to you what you said, in your own words:
“a man who cannot provide for his family is not likely to respected highly by me, by most women, or by my father.”
“I am called to sumbit no matter what, but he has made it easy for me. A lot of men make submitting difficult because deep down the woman knows that the man is only being respected because of the command of God, not because of anything that he’s done or because of who he is. Even if I were an atheist, who my husband is, is worthy of a lot of respect.”
In other words, you respect your husband because he has earned it through his conduct, through his provisioning for you. And husbands in general have to EARN respect because that will make it easier for the wife to justify and rationalize. And, the wife will not give TRUE respect unless it is earned. At bottom: he’s gotta sing for his supper. He’s gotta bring the dominance, the status, the money and/or the looks. And if he doesn’t, he’s out on his ass.
Thanks, Star, for your unbridled honesty.
::points at starviolet::
Look! It’s the Elusive Wife! ::chirp::
Stingray says:
August 30, 2012 at 1:45 pm
You omit the ‘for her’ part because you personally find it distateful? The fact is that the statement has not changed with that omission. And you question to Deti remains “How does one know who a man is without observing what he does (for women)?”
This is the feminine imperative and utilitarian worldview. All men must destroy this now and forever if they are to ever avoid having to die in a trench ‘for women’. Christianity forms an insidious fifth column in the minds of men as women can use the alpha in the sky to shame men as sinful if they go against the feminine imperative.
deti –
And just how unworthy are such women? Let me count the ways.
–she is about 40 pounds overweight and slovenly, yet struts around in clothes 2 sizes too small and thinks she is as hot as a Victoria’s Secret model
–she is sexually promiscuous and allows herself to be ridden like the town bike.
–she dresses for shit. She wears t-shirts, flip flops and sweatpants.
–she’s unpleasant, pessimistic, and caustic.
–she complains and nags constantly.
–she can’t cook.
–she thinks her travels, her college degree and her job make her “sexy” and attractive.
–she tells boring, stupid stories and thinks she is “witty”, and that this makes her attractive.
–she talks constantly about the stupidest things.
–she thinks she is an expert on politics after watching an hour or two on MSNBC.
I agree that the women that you describe here are not worthy of respect. With the exception of women (fat and thin) running around in public dressed like they are planning to sell their bodies, paint the house or organize the garage that these things are not all that common. From what I understand both men and women used to be better groomed and in better shape.
Speaking of a lack of respectable women was it you who married a ho and didn’t know it until she told you years later or I am confusing you with another poster?
Starviolet says:
August 30, 2012 at 1:52 pm
NAWLT and shaming in the same post. Damn I’m like the pussy whisperer.
Sting:
“Is not who a man is defined by what he does? I don’t care about the for her part, I’m just talking in general. How does one know who a man is without observing what he does?”
Not entirely. A man is also what he believes as manifested by what he says and does. A man is also what he speaks, because to a man, words mean things and men generally say what they mean and mean what they say. A man is also his past experiences.
But the “for her” part cannot be divorced from this analysis. A woman observes a man’s conduct and the sum total of his parts for the purpose of coopting him to serve her imperative. She assesses him to determine what he can do for her. She might not intend that. She might not be conscious of it. But make no mistake—she is doing just that.
(Your husband married a ho too)
No, YBM. I don’t find it distasteful. It is a theme I have seen around a lot and I don’t understand it. What a man does defines who he is. I am trying to figure out what is different between my understanding and others who have said this.
Star:
What does Mrs. deti have to do with the validity of the points I have made?
Thank you Deti. That makes sense.
Stingray says:
August 30, 2012 at 1:54 pm
What is means is that unless a man is ground up in the gears of a job, a wife, a church, a divorce, a battlefield he is not a man. You have indirectly said the same thing.Females want it this way, so do those who would exploit men (Bill Bennett anyone?) for their own benefit.
It is the male obligation to work, to lead, to die, to sacrifice, to take it all with a smile because emotions are for ‘fags’ right bro? UFC IS ON YEA MAN UP. It is the patriarchal norm of the male disposability, and the ladymrm contingent, the trad con contingent, and the neo con contingent will shame men right back into the gears of Mammon before they will listen to what we have to say.
It must be smashed.
Star:
And we have yet another argumentation technique:
10. Ad hominem.
Star, you’ll have much more credibility addressing the merits and substance of my arguments. You will have less credibility by attacking me personally. You can’t make a good response to my message, so you attack the messenger.
Star:
What does Mrs. deti have to do with the validity of the points I have made?
Nothing really. I was just wondering if maybe you thought that most women are promiscuous because you married a promiscuous woman, and don’t instead want to consider that maybe most women are not promiscuous and that you married a promiscuous woman for some reason. I like to know who I am talking to. Have I confused you with someone else?It has nothing to do with the rest of the argument really, so feel free to ignore it if you want to.
Starviolet says:
August 30, 2012 at 2:10 pm
“I have no rebuttal so I wish to change the subject”
Are you and gabriella the same person?
Unless you married a virgin, you married a promiscuous spouse.
deti –
In other words, you respect your husband because he has earned it through his conduct, through his provisioning for you. And husbands in general have to EARN respect because that will make it easier for the wife to justify and rationalize. And, the wife will not give TRUE respect unless it is earned. At bottom: he’s gotta sing for his supper. He’s gotta bring the dominance, the status, the money and/or the looks. And if he doesn’t, he’s out on his ass.
Please reread the words that you quoted. I spoke about who he is AND what he does the reason for my respect goes beyond providing for me. Of course providing should not be discounted. Taking on the responsibility to provide for a wife and children is something respect worthy in and of itself.
Rock Throwing Peasant says:
August 30, 2012 at 2:14 pm
that’s kind of the elephant in the room isn’t it? Unless starviolet was a virgin when she got married, Mr.starviolet might as well have married a gutter-slut prostitute, there really isn’t a perceptible difference, at least she’d be honest.
But again, the christian princess isn’t one of THOSE women, they have Jesus and the church hierarchy on their side! That makes them the moral (and utility) arbiters of all men!
Rock throwing peasant –
I respect my husband …right now.
As soon as that worldly respect falters, you will detest him because that is what you are resting your submission on, not God’s command.
I don’t think so. I think that it is no different than a wife trying her best to be a loveable person because her husband is called to love her. Her husband is obligated to love her no matter what, but there is no reason that she shouldn’t make it easy on him. I guess she could be unkempt and nasty and insist that she love him anyway, just like a husband can be a poor breadwinner and a whiner and insist that he be respected anyway. In the end God’s command is all that matters but there is no need to make following those commands difficult.
Star:
“I was just wondering if maybe you thought that most women are promiscuous because you married a promiscuous woman, and don’t instead want to consider that maybe most women are not promiscuous and that you married a promiscuous woman for some reason. I like to know who I am talking to.”
I am not invested in any particular outcome or set of facts or circumstances because of my life trajectory. I go where the facts lead me. And the facts, as far as I can ascertain them, are:
1. Not all women are or have been promiscuous, but many have been.
2. Most women who are not promiscuous were at one time, or wanted to be so, or want to be so. They are not because the men who tingle them don’t want them, or they don’t want to sleep with the available men, or because of external pressures.
3. All women are hypergamous all the time. Hypergamy is a constantly running subroutine in every woman. That subroutine constantly evaluates and tests the man (men) she is with or dating or married to, for the express purpose of making sure he is the best man she can get. If he is not, the subroutine kicks into high gear and starts searching for a replacement.
4. Women have base instincts just as men do. Women want to have sex with confident, dominant, handsome, good looking men. She will go for a man with all these traits rather than a man who has only one or two of these traits. Given the right time, right circumstance, right man and low risk of detection, many (not all, but many) women will cheat on a husband. Women will also not hesitate to lie about their sexual pasts if they deem it to be to their advantage to do so. Women’s capacity for verbal cruelty and disrespect completely outstrips those of men by several orders of magnitude. Left to their own devices, women can become vicious, cruel, ruthlessly self-interested, selfish, self-absorbed, and shallow.
@deti
I wish the four-point comment above were not true. However, if a woman is brutally honest with herself, I think she has to admit that you are correct there. The value in this is that we do have some ability to over-ride our base instincts if we are aware of them; being aware of hypergamous tendencies is quite useful in choosing not to engage in sinful behavior.
Deti –
1. Agreed.
2. disagree. Being attracted to a man does not mean that you would sleep with him outside of marriage (or for some without believing that they could get the man to marry them). Most women have no real interest in having sex with every man that they find attractive available to them or not.
3. I agree that this may be instinct for many women. I think that all but the worst of us manage not to act on this.
4. Agreed for most part but I think that most women manage not to act on their base instincts.
I don’t think so. I think that it is no different than a wife trying her best to be a loveable person because her husband is called to love her. Her husband is obligated to love her no matter what, but there is no reason that she shouldn’t make it easy on him. I guess she could be unkempt and nasty and insist that she love him anyway, just like a husband can be a poor breadwinner and a whiner and insist that he be respected anyway. In the end God’s command is all that matters but there is no need to make following those commands difficult.
No.
You misunderstand the “love” Scripture is talking about in Ephesians 5 (and, for that matter, other places). It is not eros. It is agape. It doesn’t matter how unkempt you are.
Look, it’s just this simple. If you place God first in your life, then you would realize “before we were married, I respected him” is completely irrelevant.
You still fixate on that as if it should matter, which demonstrates that you are still allowing worldly knowledge to taint your role as a wife.
You are to submit to his headship because you are a Christian wife (safely presuming).
To put it in terms of the husband’s obligation to love, it is easy to love the lovable. It is Christlike to love the unlovable. Love your wife as Christ loved (agape) the church. He can never shirk his headship duty, just as Christ could never abandon His mission. A husband gets no “extra points” for loving the lovable and, in truth, no extra points (in God’s eyes) for loving the unlovable. It’s what God commands.
However, if you are fulfilling your godly role in marriage (love/submit), you sanctify the marriage and your spouse. You slowly wash them and clean them, so they appear unblemished before the world.
You are losing the opportunity to sanctify your husband by holding on to “I respected him before” and not saying, “I submit to him, because he is my husband and God said I should.
As Christ “loved the unlovable,” he cleansed them, sanctified them. A husband loving his wife, cleanses her and sanctifies her. You have the opportunity to sanctify your marriage by placing God at the center and submitting because it is God’s command (and to hell with the world and all it taught you).
@RTP
Amen!
@ rock throwing peasant – you’ve given me a lot to think about. I will come back to discuss this later.
@koevoet (& farm boy)
This deserved a second answer.
Probably 75 years ago, the poet Robinson Jeffers wrote: “When the Republic grows weak, a Caesar will carry it.”
In 46 BC, he [Caesar] was put in charge of the Greek games [now the Olympics] that were staged in honor of the Temple of Venus Genetrix. She was the goddess of motherhood and domesticity – now being played by Ann Romney.
So this is about 36 BC.
Women are always accusing men who oppose their power in any way of wanting to “drag them back to the 1950’s”. The successes of past rampant feminacentrism are in the process of dragging us back ~36 times further. You go grrrrls!
It’s probably only a stopping off point on the way to complete regression back to the stone age. They’ll wish they’d stopped at the 1950’s. Sooner or later. We hope. Will they?
Can anyone make it multiple choice?
“I keep hearing this claim being made, but I don’t exactly see women proving it.”
Women aren’t needed to prove it, men are, by being damn easy to bed. Commitment from men is harder to get than sex. But getting sex from a large number of men isn’t an accomplishment for a woman like sex with a large number of women is for a man. Women complaining men don’t want to fuck them are probably talking about a small % of men, those not in their league, The rest are invisible to them, but they could fuck a lot of them if they wanted to.
Martian Bachelor says:
August 30, 2012 at 3:47 pm
And has been said before at other place: Women showing up in the republican party and in gamesphere blogs like this one don’t want to drag society back to 1950, they want to drag society back to 1987.
Once again proving the adage never argue with a woman ,It’s pointless
I agree that when you marry a man you owe him your respect. That doesn’t change the fact that a man who cannot provide for his family is not likely to respected highly by me, by most women, or by my father.
That statement makes you a piece of shit. Marriage is about what you have to offer. a man treats his wife right to the best of his ability not because she is a great woman that gives him the the tingles but because he is her husband. You never type up crap like that. Also a lot of the dialog between the women and men here is actually for the benefit of the men lurking here. I sure hope the christian men reading this stuff are getting this stuff down. This is how an unworthy woman speaks. .
greyghost says:
August 30, 2012 at 4:15 pm
I continue to make posts relating these issues precisely because it is for the benefit of lurkers too afraid they will be attacked by the coffee klatch to post a comment.
The purpose of women like starviolet showing up on these blogs is only help individual men lead a more enjoyable life under the confines of the female worldview of rotating polyandry(hookups)/marriage/divorce.
They do nothing to counter to legal and cultural structures that create so much male discontent. Each have a role to play but they both need to remember their place. Dalrock rails at length about the prevailing slavery that is secular marriage and yet the female posters only wish to define the parameters of what to do within the prevailing cultural and legal structures.
You and I, as holdovers from the zed/bonecrker/Esthar Villar era of man-blogs still see the triviality that sex is to the issues that really exist. We, and Dalrock, know that the women posting here dangle the sex cookie in front of the sex-starved males to distract from what is REALLY going on.
Hence, not the 1950s, the 1980s.
“It seems to be you that is being wielded by the feminists here to keep any sense from getting righted.”
Wouldn’t be the first time, and regrettably unlikely to be the last. Feminism has made fools of us all. Progress is possible, indeed likely, but it will not be painless or without confusion.
Deti,
I would like to do a post regarding what you said about respecting a man for who he is vs. for what he does. Hopefully tonight or tomorrow. Please let me know if you rather I didn’t. Thank you again for your comments.
Sting:
You can use my comments as a basis to write whatever you wish.
Deti,
Thank you. I appreciate that.
imnobody says:
August 30, 2012 at 8:49 am
Some Guy says:
August 30, 2012 at 9:13 am
Yes, they are like the Terminator.
@Desiderius
I know the feeling.
Desiderius at 931 am,
I am totally confused by your comment. What did I say that indicated hatefulness? And did I not agree with you that Ann Romney’s speech sucked and consisted of transparent pandering? The only area where I disagree with some of the commenters here is that I don’t think most women vote based on “rah rah women are great” rhetoric. For both Democrat and Republican women, it really is about the policies – economic, foreign policy, and social issues. I don’t think it is hateful to say that women aren’t generally morons.
Hmmm, I think husbands should be respected and loved regardless of whether they succeed or fail at making me money (and wives too!). It is HARD out there hustling for business. No one should have to feel that he is being judged harshly by his most intimate partner because he is having trouble bringing home the bacon – especially in this economy. The major advantage of marriage I think is having a partner who will be there for you, in your corner, even when you fall. Of course, this is a two way street and I expect my husband to still respect me if I lose my job tomorrow.
Doomed Harlot says:
August 30, 2012 at 5:52 pm
DH why you gotta be so goddamn agreeable sometimes. Its a lot harder to troll you when you post shit like that. Why is your image thing red? It used to be green…
Damn Im having a Heineken now. 😦
” Women can get laid much easier than men”
All the complaints from women about a Man Shortage, that there are No Good Men, all the angst from the Lonely Feminist Spinsters (and their diverse sisters), all the Slut Walkers demanding the “right” (opportunity?) to give the cow away for free, all the Hymowitz’s and Bennets ordering men to Man Up — they all seem to argue women are having a hell of a time even getting a guy to look at them, nevermind the rest.
Those complaints are from women searching for Mr. Right, or women who just hate men and wouldn’t want one if they got him, not from women just looking to get laid. (I’d say that even includes the Slut Walkers, except for the ones that really are hideous.) A woman who simply wants to get laid — no strings, doesn’t care whether he’ll be there in the morning, isn’t picky about his looks or other attributes — in other words, a woman who’s acting like a typical single man — can get laid by a different guy every night if she wants to. If she starts early, she can probably squeeze in 2 or 3 a night. All she has to do is walk into a bar, wait for a guy to buy her a drink, and ask if he lives nearby. Her work is done.
If she’s really horrible to look at, to the point where even the desperate losers never offer to buy her a drink (and that’s saying something), she could just announce to the room that she wants to get laid tonight, and she’ll be waiting in her car. Someone will show up. How many guys who aren’t celebrities could do that?
Think about it: prostitutes get guys to pay for it, so obviously a woman who gives it away for free could stay at least as busy as one who charges. I’ve known a couple of women who married young to their first love, and divorced after a decade or more and decided to cut loose and make up for lost time. They ran up their numbers in a hurry. A man who decides to screw everything in sight gets slowed down by the fact that most targets won’t hold still. A woman in the same boat hits no such limit.
YBM,
Well, just to make myself a little obnoxious again, I will point out that neither of my last two comments is at all inconsistent with a feminist belief in equal rights and dignity for women. Is that better? There’s plenty of room to be feminist and be a good and loving partner to a man. I suspect that feminists are least likely to be gulled by the condescending “hurray women just for existing” crap spouted by Ann Romney ( and others, yes, including Dems I’m sure).
Oh, and on my newly red symbol,your guess is as good as mine. Maybe the computer is just marking me with scarlet due to my personal life?
I’ve got to say that I totally agree that it is generally easier for a reasonably attractive woman to find a reasonably attractive man to sleep with her than vice versa, even into one’s 40s and probably 50s too. But I don’t agree that that necessarily renders sex within marriage transactional. It is still usually something both men and women want. We women may be pickier about whom to sleep with, but it doesn’t mean we don’t love sex.
Doomed Harlot
Where did anyone say that husbands shouldnt be respected and loved regardless of whether they succeed or fail at making money? Husbands should be respected regardless. However a man who can support his family and do it well is going to be more highly respected than the man who can’t. Some men are more impressive than others.
@ Rock Thowing Peasant – I understand where you are coming from in your post, but I mentioned that I respected my husband before he’d done anything for me and before we married because 1. Its true and 2. Because it was relevant to the conversation where I was being accused of ONLY respecting him because he did things for me. Of course you are right that wives should respect husbands because they are commanded to in th Bible. However it makes no sense to marry a man that you don’t already respect.
but I mentioned that I respected my husband before he’d done anything for me and before we married
Me thinks that you were pretty sure that he would deliver after marriage, so that assertion is not so compelling.
Anybody still watching see this: Pussy Riot? More Like Pussy War?
“…members of the topless feminist group FEMEN in Kiev, Ukraine took a chainsaw to a giant wooden cross commemorating the victims of Stalin’s repressions.”
Incredible. It’s getting unreal over there. One struggles to come up with an analogy which would be applicable for us.
@ybm: What exactly happened in 1987? I’m not quite up on the timeline you’re in.
You’ll have to ask PMAFT that since I was just quoting him when I said that.
Hmmm, Starviolet, i see what you’re saying. From my less traditional perspective, i would never think to link degree of respect to my husband’s paycheck size. I wouldn’t respect him mor if he made more money, or less if he made less money. That may because I’ve never viewed his role to be that of a provider in he first place.
“…members of the topless feminist group FEMEN in Kiev, Ukraine took a chainsaw to a giant wooden cross commemorating the victims of Stalin’s repressions.”
Not a good way to elicit sympathy, I think.
> in other words, a woman who’s acting like a typical single man (Cail Corishev)
More hamsterwheeling, another silly claim, and another constructivist feminist accusation that (single) men are dogs/pigs – but women are as good or better at it! I’m not buying this sort of empty bluster for a second.
Wow, lot’s of commments here. i married a believing virgin and outside of medical issues we don’t deny each other. I may be a dick sometimes, but we both try to Christ at the center of our marraige. I can guarantee you a sweet wife who expresses her desire toward you will tame your asshole natuture. Paul said don’t deny each other except by mutual aggreement for a short time. She’s not perfect by any means. But the bond established will help you grow closer. There is a reason God established sex inside marraige besides having kids. She has my respect and love, and she willingly follows God’s command to submit. It’s a heavy responsibility. I take it seriously and she respects it. We look out for each other.Two becoming one flesh isn’t for the faint of heart.
BTW, I now have a 157 lb Bull Mastiff stud the wife and kids talked me into buying when he was a pup. He’s perfect, but needs to be breed. If anyone wants a stud, let me know, he’s driving me crazy . Good genes, but he is tearing up the house. He is fixing to get cut if he doesn’t get studded out. He seems a little frustrasted. I understand, I would be too. They are sweet dog’s and gentle but protective. Watches over my 11 yo daughter like a hawk. Breed to hunt people at night and knock them down without mauling them. Very rarely barks. Breed as a gamekeeper dog to hunt poachers. English breed.
DH,
“I am totally confused by your comment. What did I say that indicated hatefulness? And did I not agree with you that Ann Romney’s speech sucked and consisted of transparent pandering? The only area where I disagree with some of the commenters here is that I don’t think most women vote based on “rah rah women are great” rhetoric. For both Democrat and Republican women, it really is about the policies – economic, foreign policy, and social issues. I don’t think it is hateful to say that women aren’t generally morons.”
You harbor a delusional hatred of Republicans that is obvious to everyone but yourself.
The original question was not about Ann Romney, she’s just trying to get in on the action Dems have been getting for decades, it was an opportunity for reflection on the part of women as to why pandering works on them.
re 1987: I imagine it’s when AIDS came into general public view. That was the year ‘And The Band Played On’ was published, ACT-UP was formed, and the propaganda machine began to tell us that AIDS wasn’t just something gays got. It was the end of the first phase of the Sexual Revolution, in other words.
Just my guess. Like ybm said, ask PMAFT.
While I respect Starviolet for her willingness to hold her own in this discussion I don’t see why we were repeatedly lumped together as though our opinions are identical. We agree on a few points and disagree on quite a lot too.
I, for one, could care less about womens suffrage. I am usually against child-support accept in rare cases. When it comes to respecting a man I agree it is owed because of their status rather than their abilities but when it comes to their abilities I am more impressed by tenacity and fair-mindedness than by paychecks and talents. Women don’t all agree about what “status markers” are so hypergamy can look different depending on the woman. Some want the rich CEO, others might go for the absent-minded professor, while others might want the starving artist type. And then there are the thug-chasers. I am attracted to the survivalist types. I don’t care about your credentials so long as you can help me survive the Zombie Apocalypse.
There are some general similarities among women but when it comes to specifics we.are.not.the.same. Which is a good thing.
I *respect* my husbands title. I *admire* his specific talents. Respect and admiration are different in my book.
“CL says:
August 27, 2012 at 9:44 am
@Dalrock
The pedant in me is compelled to point out that if you are paraphrasing Shakespeare, it is the savage breast, not beast.”
william congreve, not shakespeare
I see, Desiderius. You were criticizing my comment because I said he GOP cynically looks down on women. I do stand by that statement. I think the GOP thinks all they have to do is say, “I love women,” and women will fall into line on that basis. We saw it in 2008 when McCain pulled the gimmick of nominating a totally unqualified woman just so he could say he nominated a woman. Dems may use similarly vapid rhetoric at times, but they also tend to support things like women’s reproductive rights, anti discrimination laws etc., so their use of such rhetoric, while perhaps silly, seems less cynical.
My point is that pandering, in general, DOESN’T work on women – or at least no more so than it does on men. Women in general aren’t going to vote for Romney because Ann Romney said, “I love women!”. Republican women are going to vote for the Romney because they agree with his platform and what he stands for. Democrat women are going to vote for Obama for the same reasons. Since there are tens of millions of women, there are surely some moronic enough to vote on that basis (just as there are a lot of moronic men) but generally, I don’t think women across the board are as idiotic as you seem to assume.
Gosh, the wimmenz have taken over. I’ll just chime in and say that I agree with SouthTX as to what a marriage should be like. As to the rest of the comment thread?
Call me when they’re done. Thanks.
Women voting on “reproductive rights” as an issue based on one idiot who wanted free birth control ARE voting on an idiotic basis.
Women’s support of Al Gore surged in 2000 for a very deep intellectual reason during the convention that year. Fact check me on this……Al kissed Tipper robustly on stage and indeed received a significant surge openly based on that.
Deep thinkers.
Desiderius “”For both Democrat and Republican women, it really is about the policies – economic, foreign policy, and social issues.””
Not really…….not anywhere NEAR really statistically.
I agree with DH. The Repubs are not going to get many female votes by pandering. You are going to have to buy their votes like the Dems do. Women want more laws that discriminate against men (all current gender based laws favor women), more wealth transfer to women from men (currently 2/3rds of all welfare payments go to women), more health care for women and less for men (women already out live men by 5 years which is not good enough for most women), etc… Women will not be swayed by pretty words they want cold hard cash!
SouthTX: I can guarantee you a sweet wife who expresses her desire toward you will tame your asshole nature
Therein lies the heart of the 2-fold problem. On the one hand, God-honoring decent young men, who tame their “asshole natures” while still single, all too often lose out in the romantic competition to guys who don’t. In other words, women prefer jerks over nice guys. On the other ,women often assume that the jerk is indeed tamable if they will just be “sweet wives”, as you say, and although sometimes that’s true, all too often it isn’t — as many a sad woman has learned the hard way.
These 2 problems are at the heart of most manosphere discussions.
Women’s support of Al Gore surged in 2000 for a very deep intellectual reason during the convention that year. Fact check me on this……Al kissed Tipper robustly on stage and indeed received a significant surge openly based on that.
He was being coached at the time by Naomi Wolfe specifically for the purpose of being alpha. Tingle über alles
“This is depressing. Because I know at bottom, this is true. I know at her core, this is how my wife probably feels about me, too. I know deep down that if I weren’t the sole breadwinner in my home, my wife would probably be divorcing me now or shit testing me within an inch of my life. I know at their core, this is about how nearly all wives feel about their husbands”.
Deti – sounds like you almost hate your wife
Various manosphere/game writers have tried to put some kind of positive spin on hypergamy/testing: she just needs to look up to you in some way (looks, money, status, leadership, etc.), she’s just testing for strength to know you can stand up to others if you can stand up to her, that’s how women are designed to make you a better man, blah blah blah. I have largely come to a more cynical conclusion, hypergamy is just constantly wanting the best man she can get and reality is just a nuisance. Women seem mostly incapable of real internal commitment. Fitness testing is not really to “feel a man’s strength” or “know he can stand up to others”. It seems to be just plain old “I think I can do better than this guy and I’m pissed about it.” It’s like women are constantly delusional that if a man is committed to/loves her and tries to cultivate a warm loving relationship by letting things go or not jumping on all of her faults, she must be able to do better. If a man tries to use a gentle answer to turn away wrath (Proverbs 15:1), she must be able to get a better man who won’t put up with any crap.
This tendency says a lot about women, and it isn’t good. And don’t even mention the pedestal. I think a lot of men don’t really put women on a pedestal, they just expect the same of women as themselves. But women can’t even do that. It’s not “take them off the pedestal”, it’s more like “put them in the basement”. But how can you really trust/love a woman like that?
South TX:
“I can guarantee you a sweet wife who expresses her desire toward you will tame your asshole nature.”
Van Rooinek is right. Men who “tame their asshole natures” strike out with women, full stop. Men who go all in on a woman, lose the woman.
I’ll post here something I posted at HUS. It’s about the way women tell men to act and to be around women; and what women tell men is attractive. It is 100% wrong, and no man should follow it. It is posted here to show just how wrongheaded the advice is.
Here’s how I (and a lot of men coming of age in the 1980s) were told how to “find, attract and keep commitment-minded women” by pastors, parents, teachers, Scout leaders, and persons in authority over us (men and women):
“Be nice. Be yourself. If you cannot find or keep a commitment minded woman, it is because you are not being nice enough. If girls are breaking up with you or you can’t get past one date, you are not being nice enough. You have to be nicer.
“When you go on a date, it is your DUTY to pay for EVERYTHING. You are to do what she wants. You are to ask her what she wants and then do that. You are not to do anything that she does not want to do. You are to ask her for permission before doing anything.
“With sex — DON’T. Keep your d**k in your pants. If you want to kiss her, you must ask her first. If you want to hold her hand, you must ask first. You must never, never, NEVER escalate to anything physical unless you ask first. You are not to take anything sexually. You must ask for it.”
“Sex is a Beautiful Experience for a woman. You must never do anything to ruin it for her. You must make sure she orgasms and if she is not it is YOUR FAULT. Women do not like rough, vigorous sex. They like slow, romantic sex with candles and soft music. You must always have sex the way SHE wants to have it.
“Women are always looking for husbands. You are being evaluated all the time for your suitability as a husband. You must show that you are husband material. The way you do that is through immediate investment and commitment. You must go all in immediately on a woman you like.
“You must tell her everything about yourself — your likes, dislikes, hopes, dreams, plans and desires. You must not hesitate to show your emotions, that you are in touch with and understand your emotions, and that you will come to her for emotional support when you need it. Women love that. You must reveal, be an open book so you have no secrets from her. In this way she will know that it is safe for her to show her emotions, and that you have shown the requisite level of commitment to her and her alone.
“Do all this, and the women will be beating down your door to date, marry and have sex with you. Now go forth, be fruitful, and multiply.”
Having children in a marriage creates its own dynamic. Prior to reliable birth control, a man having access to his wife’s affections meant that there would be an abundance of children in the marriage. Nowadays, the implication is that the man can have unlimited pleasure but without the children. Women have always been obsessed with the fountain of youth. The ability to control child bearing, which keeps women from becoming dependent (baggage free) and attached to a particular man as well as remaining more physically fit and attractive are ways modern women drink from this well. Granted it only delays the loss of their physical attractiveness but many have become drunk from this elixer which only wears off when their fertility is gone and with it, their looks.
@ jrc:
“Deti – sounds like you almost hate your wife”
I don’t hate her. It’s cold hard truth and realism. I see her as she is, not as I would like her to be. Sometimes that truth is ugly. I still have to face it and give voice to it. It does no one any good to ignore what we all now know.
“[To me, hypergamy] seems to be just plain old “I think I can do better than this guy and I’m pissed about it.””
This. This right here. It does have variations, though.
“I think I can do better than this guy, I’m locked into a marriage to him, I’m getting older, fatter, and less attractive by the minute, and I’m pissed about it.”
“I have done better – LOTS better — than this guy, but now I can’t, and I’m pissed about it.”
“This guy is the best I can do, he’ll just haffta do, I can’t do any better, this is as good as it’s gonna get, and I’m pissed about it.”
@deti
Some guy in the manosphere said it clearly but I can’t find the quote so I quote by heart:
“One of the stumbling blocks for men to deal with women is to realize that women can’t love men, at least not the way men want to be loved”.
Men love women. Women love children.
Women can’t love men the way men love women. Children can’t love mothers the way mothers love children.
It sucks and it’s hard to swallow, but it’s the truth.
@deti
You get an A+ in “real women’s studies”
I can’t possibly catch up with all of the posts but this is one of the posts from Dalrock that I’ve liked the least.
Dalrock are you saying that Game says something other than what Mohler says int he last paragraph? That paragraph implies to me a man who has actively reduced his SMV. In fact, game proposes something very similar to Mohler. There are qualifications for the marriage bed. Even the Bible proposes that. That is, it places restrictions on men (the same oft quoted here chapter in Ephesians). It is right to _also_ remind women of their roles. This is sorely lacking in most pulpits. However Mohler’s article isn’t addressed to women.
@imnobody
I think that was Rollo, actually.
https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/women-in-love/
OT, but if anyone doubts that the Wall exists, and will affect everyone, even glamorous, sexed-up celebrities, look no further than this. Bring your barfbag, though. Ladies, let the hamsterbation begin!
http://styleblazer.com/52755/15-celebrities-who-are-aging-badly-michelle-williams-lindsay-the-jenner-sisters-more/
Deti, you need a blog, man! Awesome stuff!
jrc, you are in accord with scripture: agape is used for God’s love of mankind, and man’s love of his wife; phileo (love of family, friends) is used for woman’s love of man.
imnobody,
Please check out the new article on NO MA’AM regarding the social relationship between
man -> woman -> Children -> puppies (LOL) and the state. It is a worthwhile read. I don’t know if that website was the first in the manosphere that popularized this observation but that is where I first learned this from.
http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2012/08/whats-in-name-civil-unions-and-shared.html
For the more ‘revenge’ inclined minds of the manosphere Rob outlines a pretty good plan to destroy motherhood there, from a Marxist point of view anyway:
– create a fathers rights advocacy group with funding from wealthy foreigners and 1%ers
– make it mainstream
– Imply that children have a ‘right’ to a father
– enforce it by the state
– if a woman attempts to fight this enforcement, remove the child from her care
– force women to prove they live in the best interests of the child (by working)
– if a woman attempts to fight this enforcement, remove the child from her care
– if working does not provide the best interests of the child, remove the child from her care
I’m sure there is more than one conspiracy theorist who just read that and had a deep, sinking feeling in the pit of their stomach.
lol
Imnobody,
Men love women. Women love themselves. Children are worth alimony.
Fixed that for you…
Imnobody, Nas
SunshineMary and I discussed this recently here. The idea was that there is a hierarchy: Christ, Man, Wife, Child. Sacrificial love flows downwards, but not upwards. Respect and obedience naturally flow upwards. Women respect, men love. I am not sure it is true, but it seems to fit with observation.
This is not true, deti. I know that it applies to some women, but I don’t believe it applies to most and I most certainly don’t believe it applies to any woman who is serious about her faith.
I was hoping Dalrock would deal with this issue of hypergamy at some point in the future because the meme is twisted and overblown around here. It has been attributed to part of women’s “sin nature” . I vehemently disagree with that as well.
You all claim to believe that a woman is required to submit to and respect her husband. And if, as we all believe, a husband’s job is to be the leader of, protector of, and primary provider for, his wife and family, then why would a woman be wrong for choosing a man she can look up to? Marrying a man who cannot do for her what she can at minimum do for herself is illogical. It would seem to me to be counter intuitive to choose a man she isn’t inclined to look up to for some reason or another.
Never, in my 18 years of marriage, have I looked around for another man of higher status to replace my husband with. Never have I, upon encountering a man of higher status, imagined that he might make me happier than my own husband.
I know you guys don’t like anecdotal evidence, but i am using myself as an example precisely because I do not believe that I am a special snowflake. There are women who marry with the full understanding that this is it.
Let the flogging commence, LOL.
DC,
Women are still cursed by the need to seek control. A dependent child is a power trip for many women.
@Elspeth
Key phrase is “best man she CAN get”. If a woman knows/perceives she cannot do better than her husband, she is much less likely to be enamoured by unattainable alphas … unless they hit on her in a way that indicates attainability in a believable manner.
Did any of these higher status men give you the belief that they were attainable for you?
Were you a Christian when you became engaged to your husband? If so, how serious were you about your faith?
NAWALT
Now if only each man could find that special snow flake, just for him, all our problems would disappear…
Yea, I think I’m done with this blog, the women have dug their claws in, only to keep the conversation on them in its entirety. Elspeth used ‘I’ 10 times in one comment, if that is any means to go on…
Thank you for the great blog Dal, I’ll check in every now and then but the level of intrusion from the fem brigade has destroyed the sort of discourse that was thought provoking.
Boom goes the dynamite.
Feminist Hater says:
August 31, 2012 at 3:58 pm
http://www.antifeministtech.info/2012/08/is-it-possible-to-defend-a-male-space-without-it-being-hostile-to-women/
Todays average woman divorces todays average man.
DISCLAIMER: NADWALT.Today’s averag
When I married my husband I was lapsed Christian, raised my whole life in a Baptist church under a very strict father (my dad saved me from myself so I’m not complaining) and promptly went my own way when I moved away from home at the age of 20 years, 10 months.
I was entertaining the notion of dating a young Christian man who showed interest in me. He was very nice. Talented, considerate and always willing to make concessions. Did I mention that he was a really nice guy?
I met my husband through a mutual friend. He was very handsome, still is by any objective standard. He was not a Christian, was as unchurched as anyone I’d ever met in my life, and his life was complicated, to put it mildly. However, when he asked me out, that was the nail in the coffin of that other fledgling relationship and we’ve been married 18 years.
Whether or not other men who were of higher status were within my reach is not something I have ever considered. That is the truth. I can’t answer if I had a chance with any of those men. It never mattered, and this was true before he converted and before I returned to my faith.
I think I will take my leave from here after answering any further questions you have jrc because I’m not interested in bringing down the level of discourse. It wasn’t my intention to invade the male space with my solipsistic feminine comments, LOL.
Elspeth says:
August 31, 2012 at 4:16 pm
Tits or GTFO
I believe Elspeth. I see the same attitudes in my wife.
I guess my point was misunderstood. I am an asshole to my core. God has saved me from doing some bad stuff. God gave me a wife and kids so I know I am accountable. I thank God for her and the kids, because it would be too easy to go to the dark side.. As stupid as most people are, it would be easy pickings and I would either be successful, in jail, or dead. I’ve been blessed.
I guess what Elspeth, DC and SouthTX are saying is to be an asshole. Deadly serious, it’s what got them and Elspeth’s husband, the woman that God meant for them. Don’t be a Christian man, be a dick. No wait, be an unbelieving, non-Christian dick, that’s even better. Be a literal ‘ticking timebomb’ and treat other people like crap, cause you will get the girl.
Please remind me why a man should be Christian again?
@Elspeth
“after answering any further questions you have jrc”
Offer accepted …
1. I recall you mentioning that your husband was something like an 8 and a higher rank than you when you guys met/married. Is my memory correct? If not, please set me straight.
2. If your husband has been a higher rank than you, would you concede that it is possible this discrepancy is what mollified any hypergamy rather than it just doesn’t exist in you like all these manosphere/gamers keep complaining about?
3. Was the nice guy about as good looking as your husband was?
I can’t let this one go, FH even though I know I should.
It wasn’t about his being a dick. It was that he was confident and self-assured enough to not let a me, no matter how much he want me, set the terms of our relationship. It was that he didn’t apologize for who he was because I knew who and what he was and I chose of my own free will.
He didn’t see me as inherently better than him because I am female and he called me out when the situation called for it and didn’t let lead him around by the nose or manipulate him.
Some people might call that being a dick, but there is absolutely no reason why a Christian man can’t deal with a woman on those terms and still be true to his faith.
No Elspeth, you went with the non-Christian man, as a Christian yourself, because he gave you fucking tingles. The good Christian guy couldn’t give you tingles, and thus his Christian belief meant nothing, not even to another Christian believer.
Maybe it really comes down to be cocky and aloof. Being an absolute dominant prick. Let your inner asshole rule…
@ jrc:
1. I’d say at least a 7. My memory says an 8, but that’s because I knew that other women liked him too. His very masculine and confident attitude probably had as much to so with it as anything else.
2. It’s highly possible. No, I’d say that this is true. I joke with him all the time that he is better looking than me, because he is. Had I waited around until my late 20’s or early 30’s to get married, I may have had a different mental trajectory.
3. He was pretty cute, actually. But he was my height, and my husband is 6’2″. I’m 5’9″. I don’t think it mattered at the time, but I thought I’d mention it since you’re asking for an objective comparison. However, it was about more than that. It was about attitude and confidence. See my remarks to Feminist Hater’s rant about being a dick.
That quote screams tingles! You can’t deny it.
@ elspeth
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/beauty-taming-the-savage-beast/#comment-54756
“I was hoping Dalrock would deal with this issue of hypergamy at some point in the future because the meme is twisted and overblown around here. It has been attributed to part of women’s “sin nature” . I vehemently disagree with that as well.”
Elspeth, you are one of the few woman on here that i read almost always without reservation cause i know im not gonna get the same ‘ol shit. For that reason im gonna ask you to support this statement with facts and figures outside of your one woman anecdotal evidence(i do believe you with regards to your feelings for your hubby).
I don’t, I wouldn’t even try because I’d be lying. Still, we’ve been married 18 years and have 5 children, so it’s all good, right? Tingles for your husband is a good thing.
Sure, especially if you’re not a Christian man.
Here Elspeth, this is what it boils down to. Being a dominant non-Christian > Being a Christian.
Joshua,
I thought I covered this in that comment, but my point was that if a woman is supposed to submit to and follow the lead of the man she marries, then being able to look up to him is an imperative, no? Leaders are superiors by definition so for a woman to be comfortable being led by a man who isn’t her superior seems counter intuitive.
Understand that I’m not trying to discount that reality of women being hypergamous, or that women sometimes attempt to trade up. Of course they do. It’s human nature and given that we live in a culture that has removed all penalties from women who engage this type of behavior, it’s to be expected to some degree.
However, for an unmarried woman a healthy degree of hypergamy in her choice of husband is not sinful. it’s logical and healthy. She has to follow this man the rest of her life.
After the commitment has been made however, any kind of hypergamous thinking is sinful Married women should never be looking to trade up.
What Elspeth, SouthTX and DC and many others have proven is that the belief system shown by Dalrock’s very post is at the very heart of their own lives. They are living proof of the idea of ‘the beast being tamed by the beauty’. That the overriding assumption in many Christian women’s mind is that the dominant non-caring man, or the utter douchbag asshole, or even the bad boys can be tamed by their beauty and God given womanhood.
But my husband is a Christian, and he’s still as dominant as he ever was.
Yeah, FH, I know. I know. But I lean pretty Calvinist so skip it. LOL.
I thought you said he wasn’t at the time of your marriage? Oh wait, you did.
His being a Christian now, just proves this entire post. You, supposedly, tamed him and made him Christian.
God, give me strength!
I believe Elspeth has shown sufficient evidence that she is NOT qualified to attempt to discredit the pervasive undercurrent of hypergamy. Particularly the cynical version I tend to – letting things go or trying to be kind/loving/warm causes a woman to think she can do better (hypergamy) even if she really cannot and the resulting tests (really just pissed off and taking it out on you) begin. I am hoping someone can show me women don’t deserve to be “put in the basement”.
I dont think anyone here is saying hypergamy is bad in a single woman trying to get the best marriage partner she can. Starwman much?
They are living proof of the idea of ‘the beast being tamed by the beauty’. That the overriding assumption in many Christian women’s mind is that the dominant non-caring man, or the utter douchbag asshole, or even the bad boys can be tamed by their beauty and God given womanhood.
I don’t believe that at all, actually and it’s one of the reasons I have refrained until asked directly from sharing the story of how I met my husband. I didn’t want to send that message.
From what I have gathered, DC’s wife and story doesn’t resemble ours at all. He was a Christian after all, when he met and married his wife. The only connecting theme I see is a dominant frame, which one can have as a Christian man.
His being a Christian now, just proves this entire post. You, supposedly, tamed him and made him Christian.
Me? Tame him? Thanks for the laugh, FH. It’s been real. I gotta run and get dinner on the table by the time the man I tamed walks through the door, LOL.
Elsbeth, you have shown yourself to be quite condescending when you want to be. For all your ability to pretend to understand what men are going through, you come across as rather unapologetic.
I’m sure your husband has oodles of dominance of frame, he sure needs it to keep one such as yourself under foot.
I was a Catholic when I met my wife. She was too, though less serious. I got her to become the Catholic wife I wanted. No using the pill, for example, when we married. I had some moral lapses with her, at my instigation. But I wanted us to marry.
It wasn’t about his being a dick. It was that he was confident and self-assured enough to not let a me, no matter how much he want me, set the terms of our relationship. It was that he didn’t apologize for who he was because I knew who and what he was and I chose of my own free will.
He didn’t see me as inherently better than him because I am female and he called me out when the situation called for it and didn’t let lead him around by the nose or manipulate him.
Some people might call that being a dick, but there is absolutely no reason why a Christian man can’t deal with a woman on those terms and still be true to his faith.
This is normal for any woman. Why any churchian does not teach that to his christian men is a sin in itself.
feminist hater one thing to say.
You are goddamn right it was the tingles. and from what it looks like she tingled her ass to 18 years of marriage. As far as taming the beaste , shit man look at what she is showing you. This is a feminist world we live in. She is the one legally that needs to be tamed. Look at the post from these other women on here. If anything that brother tamed a feral pussy into what all christians supposidly strive for. 18 years and look how she writes about him. I’ll take it, amen baby you are a christian woman. You stupid ass churchian need to get the equality shit out of your brains. You are putting rational thought and behavior standards on a woman that ias what being a feminised pussy worshipper does. Elspeth is behaving as a proper lady not as a proper man and so the hell what she is a lady. Elspeth go do something nasty and kinky with your husband tonight something you would not want spoken of here because you deserve it.
You churchians need to quit with the standards for women. The only thing that really makes a woman a christian women is if she is sucking the dick of a christian man and is proud of it. Feminist hater you demand way too much from women. Something that is not there in the first place. Ingnore the bitch give her do when the behavior is right because a woman will always do whats in her tingle interest. Always.
Yeah. Married 26 years. She sucks my cock. Foreplay. On her knees sometimes.
Christian women need to be mastered too.
Feminist Hater, your comments are getting close to the Deti level. You saw exactly what I saw.
My niece just dumped a nice guy accountant with lots of income potential. Now she f’s a bad boy with no prospects. Her parents are appalled. Seen this type of thing many times though. Tingle über alles.
How old is she farm boy?
Farm boy… erk. Seen it as well… but the problem is that many girls go for false leaders or Roissy Alpha instead of leaders . Elspeth is an example of a woman who is married to a leader.
Consider the following — A president of the USA. Married to a beauty. Sleeping with at least one movie star who is still considered one of the sexiest women of the 20th century. But was elected by his party getting the dead to vote, and the Russians thought they could put missles in Cuba. Compared with his predecessor — not as glamourous, but led the Allies from Normandy to Berlin, presided over the worst years of the Cold War, and kept the US out of Indochina (Kennedy got you in).
Ike was a leader. Kennedy was someone who pretended to be one.
You see, leaders do not go off and play golf when the going gets tough (as Clint reminded us empty chair did). They hang in there. And most women will follow them to hell and back. Now you can call that hypergamy — because there is no penalties on women being faithless now — but before our family laws got trashed these instincts were adaptive.
Farm boy that is too bad on the girl but is not a new thing it is just more common due to it being the herds way. in a sane world she would tingle for the nice guy due to the solcial stayus and the approval of familiy and friend. And would personally suppress desire for the bad boy to avoid being seen as a slut. No rings for sluts needs to be spoken out loud in church. It helps guide the tingle.
Chris you nailed it hard
When the going gets tough, the wife gets going… to divorce court…
farm boy, don’t worry, I’m sure she will be expecting that same accountant she dumped now to ‘man up’ in a few years to marry her and support her and the child she will get from current hubby. No problems, it’s the wave of the future.
Either that or she will tame Mr tingly and turn him into a dominant Christian man and then submit to him.
My niece is 23, college graduate, useless degree, good looking. She is dumping current bad boy and moving to Washington, DC to find her self. Long way from fly over country. It is expected that she will find a new tingle inducer quickly.
FH, you miss the error. It is that a wife can withold herself from her husband, and thus defraud him to “tame the savage beast” (or turn the leader into a contemptable slave>
This is not scriptural.
If you marry, in good faith, you are saying that you will keep your spouse…. safisfied. One of you is going to be hornier than the other, and will have to make an effort to comply. (And over the time of your marriage, that will probably vary). But you are not to use sex as a weapon.
To teach otherwise is to teach falsely. We are not called to be married monks and nuns.
One can never keep their spouse ‘satisfied’, one can keep them content. This is not the issue though. The issue being discussed above in Dalrock’s post is the idea of the wife ‘taming’ the beast that is her husband and turning him into a productive person. By either withholding sex or by turning the beast to worshiping God by providing her ample bosom as reward.
Now, in society today, the woman tingles for the beast (aka asshole, badboy, POS arrogant douche) far more than the dutiful man who has done everything required to be a good husband by being educated, holding down a boring job and taking out a mortgage. Therefore, society has removed the benefit for men to actually do good and be productive, by instead allowing women to choose the beast who tingles her the most, in the rather pathetic hope, that her womanhood turns the beast into a productive man.
No good will come of this… Keep arguing otherwise, the truth eventually will out.
That was great Feminist Hater. You got it. The tingle is normal and always present. The failure is what makes for the tingle. Feminism and liberation was for it to be ok and even good for a woman to tingle for the bad boy. It is normal base and uncivilized to act on it but that was called oppresion of the patriarchy.
But a woman can tingle for a good man also. We can help it along with christian men being more fearless and confident. And can start with never allowing the phrase Heroic single mothers to ever be spoken. No rings for sluts needs to be repeated as a start. So what if she gets mad and leaves thank her for no exposing those youg christian men to unworthyness.
BTW the fantasy of a woman pussy whipping the player,alpha,cad,PUA waht ever your term is chick crack. 50 shades of grey has the chick flipping the alpha into a beta for her out of his love for her. Learn game (psychology of the sexual nature of women) and use the bible to guide the feral cunt. You will never enlighten a woman to biblical principles the tingle rules but she will be well behaved in her own best interest to the point of being worthy of a mans love. That is the best you are going to get.
That is the equivalent of an ugly woman lamenting that a man won’t marry her even though she has such a nice personality.
Men marry a woman who they can imagine screwing for the rest of their life. “Nice” is good..but it doesn’t raise the flag pole. There are plenty of “good” women who can’t get a date because they have the worlds worst overbite or a tubular breasts or webbed feet.
Income potential is a nice bonus but what turns me on is courage. I dumped a rich guy for a low-ranking military guy because I wanted someone to save me if we ever find ourselves stuck in an action movie and Van Diesel is shooting at me. Protectiveness and raw masculinity turns me on. Risk-aversion in a man is the sexual equivalent of webbed toes on a woman.
FH, false dichotomy. A man can do both – that is what a traditional husband should do. Be a good provider, look after his family, stay around when things get tough, and enjoy his wife’s services as the master of the house.
@gabby
Tingle über alles
Greyghost and Gabby are on the right track.
Tingle is not above EVERYTHING else, but when choosing a potential spouse it is pretty damn important. It is one of several factors but a very very significant one. As is beauty for a man choosing a wife..regardless of how “shallow” that seems you can’t enjoy sex with someone if there is no attraction.
Moralizing frivolous divorce is good, bur moralizing “tingles” is as silly as fat chicks complaining guys prefer thin chicks. It makes you sound like a whiny baby.
Though it’s a few days upstream, I have to weigh in on the debate between Matthew King and a few other readers that occurred on 8/27-8/28. Matthew is right. Mohler, Driscoll, Stanton, et al. don’t call themselves Traditional Conservatives. I don’t even know that they call themselves conservatives at all. They certainly don’t call themselves traditionalists, for, as Dalrock no doubt knows, “tradition” is a bad word within evangelicalism: it connotes what they feel to be meaningless, arbitrary, man-made ritual that does nothing to effect salvation, as contrasted with what evangelicals do believe paramount: a “personal relationship with Jesus.” (This is why evangelicals have completely abandoned pipe organs, stained glass, wooden pews, the King James Bible, standards of dress in church, etc. over the past 30 years–those things connote a stodgy, irrelevant, useless tradition to them.) I haven’t seen Mohler or Driscoll or Stanton explicitly deride tradition, but many evangelicals do–and they certainly don’t explicity promote it either.
When I do try to think of people who call themselves “traditional conservatives,” the closest who comes to mind is Larry Auster, who calls himself a “traditionalist conservative.” And while he has made some statements that sound pedestalizing in the past, he also argues that women not be allowed to vote, and says he doesn’t believe the common trope that women are these paragons of virtue who civilize men.
There is nothing traditional about the objects of Dalrock’s criticism, nor do they themselves assert that there is. Stop calling them “traditional.”
@DC
The trouble is that these days all it takes to get the girl is to be a bad boy, which really is not so hard to do. Why put in the effort it takes to be a good provider?
I know that you are a good provider who can generate tingles, as I am also. But outliers, we are. The world does encourage the development of such guys.
Tingle is not above EVERYTHING else, but when choosing a potential spouse it is pretty damn important.
Well, he has to be breathing also.
So why should guys who do not generate tingles in women be stuck with paying taxes to clean up the messes created by women who are chasing tingles?
Farm Boy, I hope you are right about us. In any case, we used to be the norm.
I suppose I am a traditionalist conservative of sorts.
Lawrence Auster seems to have been nibbling on the red pill lately.
Good points, Hermes.
Why do ugly women have to pay taxes? Why do chaste women pay taxes? Why do I have a painful zit on my ear? Why is life so unfair?
I dont know. Tell me when you figure it out.
Gabby, that was feminine. Think about it some more. No doubt the American men can explain better than me.
It just strikes me as so much silliness. I have heard women complaining about mens taste in women since …somewhere around my conception… and here men complain that women tingle for bad boys.
I have a big nose. Men don’t like big noses. I could either curse God for making men prefer small noses, or curse God for giving me a big nose…or take my lumps like a big girl and see it as just one more opportunity to overcome vanity and develop in holiness.
@gabby
Women consume way more in services than contribute in taxes. It starts with healthcare, then extends to general welfare. So many of these costs are preventable.
Or save my pennies for rhinoplasty…which I may or may not be doing.
Well, if you want to debate fiscal conservativism then we probably won’t have much disagreement. Unless you think libraries should be for-profits then I will call you a fascist.
@gabby
Fascist huh? I guess this at an end.
Recent posts seem to be attracting lots more comments. Is it possible to implement tagging, threading, or some kind of scoring system (like Slashdot “moderation”), so that it is easier to read the comments?
@Gabbygabriela
My what flippant condescending posts you have. Too much vinegar not enough honey. That was also a nice sneaky straw man.
(answers in parentheses)
Why do ugly women have to pay taxes?(congress said so) Why do chaste women pay taxes?(they dont) Why do I have a painful zit on my ear?(you dont wash thouroughly) Why is life so unfair?(your a woman your life isnt unfair. For a man life is unfair because its legislated that way)
Sweetie if you cant figure out the answers to these easy questions you don’t deserve to be in the debate.
Well, I find myself agreeing wth Hermes and Gabby. The reason I quoted was in part because part of the meme of taming the man is Stanton’s idea that you should only canoodle when he is worthy.
Now, that need to be worthy removes a man from a leadership frame and puts a women on a pedestal ruling… the “True Lies” scenario.
Gabby, It does not matter why a man likes you. (Hint, it is nothing to do with plastic surgery). Or why you like your husband. What matters is that you choose to look for him.
I’m not sweet, I’m savory. 🙂
It wouldn’t hurt any of you to lighten up a little.
Joshua
Women don’t have the ability to answer those question and never had it. Her role in the debate is not to make good points for men to learn from. Her role is for her to be observed by the men here to develope there game.
Believe it or not debate with a woman to your satisfaction still places her in the position of the leader. Women are responsibility adverse and reguardless of how indirect and complicated it is a woman in that position will be miserable and not even know or understand why.It is where frivolous divorces from a perfectly good man come from. Nice guys finish last for a very valid reason.
Too much is made of purity of heart. If the behavior is right even if it is out of pure wicked selfishness. When she is old and undesirable grand kids will giggle and play at her feet. That is god saying close enough bitch now let me have that hamster and enjoy yourself some inner piece. Women were never required to be any kind of leaders in church for a reason They don’t have the capacity and were never meant to in the first place
The church is really fucking up by not learning female psychology.
God take me take home if i wander..I would rather face God with a clear conscience. I can explain my sins more easily…No pride But I know he will have mercy.. I suggest the rest of you take the same deal. The altenartive is bad.. You don’t want to go there.
farm boy, it’s at an end, yes. Slowly but surely these women will sap the life from you. The endless font of rationalising bull that comes from their mouths is greater than any man’s temperament. These women are full of rebellion, only the perfect man is good enough for them. Any other man is fascism.
They will keep arguing the same point over and over again and then create another straw man so that the whole opera can start again, a perpetual, condescending pontification that usually ends in a LOL or a emoticon.
A space, truly free of female influence would be a wonder to behold. It’s not to be found here though.
@ elspeth:
“This (hypergamy is a constantly running subroutine in all women) is not true, deti. I know that it applies to some women, but I don’t believe it applies to most and I most certainly don’t believe it applies to any woman who is serious about her faith.”
It is true. Hypergamy is in constant operation in all women. The key difference is whether a woman acts on it. She feels it and experiences it and is sometimes aware of it; but does not always act on it.
@gabbygabriella:
“It just strikes me as so much silliness. I have heard women complaining about mens taste in women since …somewhere around my conception… and here men complain that women tingle for bad boys.
“I have a big nose. Men don’t like big noses. I could either curse God for making men prefer small noses, or curse God for giving me a big nose…or take my lumps like a big girl and see it as just one more opportunity to overcome vanity and develop in holiness.”
Yes, but it will be much easier for you to get sex, or a BF, or a husband even with your big nose, than it is for a Christian man to get sex, or a GF, or a wife– even if he is “nice” and has a good job — all the things women SAY they want.
Is there something I need to apologize for? This is not a flippant question. I am very opposed to entire groups of people feeling pressure to be “apologetic” to other groups of perceived oppressed people simply because they happen to belong to that group.
I was married at 22 to a man I have been faithful to, bore 5 of his children, and have never entertained the notion of leaving him. When he said “quit working”, I quit. When he said, “I want more kids”, I had more babies. I fail to see what it is that demands I come here with an apologetic tone. I am very supportive of and sympathetic to men’s issues, but haven’t wronged anyone here.
I am a woman with a sin nature, something that I had no control over and something that does not beg apology to anyone but my Creator; for the latter at least.
I admit that I would be quite a handful for a lesser man. You’re right. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
@Gabriella
I don’t care about women liking bad boys. They can have the best thugs they can get. After all, women who like bad boys are not worth a cent so the bad boys are doing us a favor by taking them from us.
But, when the bad boy gets the woman pregnant and he bails and she becomes a single mom, I would like for her to pay her own mistakes. I don’t want to rely on welfare, coupons and so on, so responsible women and men, who have worked hard to have a job, who have planned in advance to marry a responsible partner so they can have a stable family, have to pay this skank through taxes so she can be irresponsible and foolish. So other skanks who are watching her can see her example and try to repeat it.
Perhaps no greater argument in favor of making Christianity Extinct than this thread, fortunately men are going the lords work by leaving the whores to their Babylon and time is on our side.
Also a compelling case for men to p&d or ghost, and work as little as you can.
I didn’t finish my sentence.
…So other skanks who are watching her can see her example and try to repeat it. So the dwindling productive part of society is paying more and more taxes to feed an increasing bunch of parasites.
I would simpl counter that a man is a fool for being productive. Let’s the girls have their office jobs, endless hours under the fluorescent lights, go fishing instead! They can prop up the system for as long as they want, welfare is pretty easy to get.
Why bother with men you would ask? My simple answer would be, don’t. A women needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle after all!
@ybm +1
ybm: a man is a fool for being productive. Let’s the girls have their office jobs, endless hours under the fluorescent lights, go fishing instead!
Men should occupy themselves only with hunting and war = Genghis Khan
Dal rocs blog is probably the most important one rightp now as it is proving the long suspected hypothesis that trad con women are in no way allies of men. Each comment section, more and more trad con women show up regurgitating the exact same hatred we exposed in the radfem hub, only they use the name of Jesus in mockery of him to take the moral hihground.
That, feminist hater, is why they are here, dalrock exposes them, and the slaves cannot be given agency, at all costs.
I’ve come to realize women only come to these beliefs “mra” in two ways:
1 my slutty daughter/ my divorced ass can’t find a bozo to pay for shit. We need his productive capacity.
2 my son/second husband is getting ground up in the legal zeitgeist, we need his productive capacity
Of course the third way is tha they are here to simply deny the issues exist and blame it on men, but these folks don’t share any mra beliefs.
Starve the beast men, it is the only way.
I listened to Romney’s speech this afternoon, from the GOP convention. For shits and giggles. The man is worth 200 million dollars, yet his wife supposedly had the ‘harder job’ raising their five children. Not just the ‘harder job’, mind you, but the more important job. I suppose that settles it, being a woman is the hardest job in the world! I don’t actually know whether to laugh or cry at this point. Both parties, pandering to the most illogical and emotional block, trying to get votes. Welcome to Dementedville!
How one manages to get an economy out of the long drop toilet by pandering to those that eat through welfare and entitlement schemes like rabbits fucking in mating season, is anyone’s guess. Perhaps Romney is pandering to them now and later he will flip-flop, after winning the election, and become fiscally responsible, reduce entitlement spending and bring the American troops home, whilst sealing the southern border and deporting those who are residing in America illegally? LOL NOT!
@ greyghost-“Women don’t have the ability to answer those question and never had it.”
That was my whole point. Woman are stupid and should shut up.
Having a female free space is easy. You could either create a message board that is invitation only, or you could ask the blog leader to make a statement asking the females to no longer comment (or specific ones) and then put them in moderation if they refuse to comply.
You guys are also thinking of the term “bad boy” in terms of criminal and lawlessness. A better term would be “bad-ass”..because a person can be both good and a bad-ass. Think of a soldier, or a policeman, or a firefighter. Those are very sexy jobs. More so than an accountant. Not that an accountant can’t be a bad-ass…he just isn’t one simply by virtue of being an accountant. Maybe if he has manly hobbies.
“Dal rocs blog is probably the most important one rightp now as it is proving the long suspected hypothesis that trad con women are in no way allies of men.”
– Traditional women are the most dangerous sort of enemy. They try to lure men back into being slaves. But they won’t succeed! Notice that there aren’t any young or even semi attractive women commenting on these sites. The vast majority of women in this country won’t listen to advice of these traditional women. Despite what you think about harsh economic times etc, they won’t manage to change their actions in time to incentivize the younger men into being productive and take on unnecessary burdens.
– My generation of men will be a generation of slackers. Most men of my generation have decided or will decide: “Let the women brag about how successful they are and how they don’t need a man. Why work hard? What’s in it for me? I don’t want to be a sucker!” These men will lead free lives until some point in the distant future women re institute patriarchy.
Indeed you will find all women who post on mrm blogs are mothers or wives, young women are too busy letting a bartender bust inside her.
I don’t find that future particularly distant. I think if the election in America leads to romneys election the forces of the orthodoxy will begin to reimplement surplus men like you into the workforce through tying government benefits to work, or conscript you to die in a desert until the gender ratio is more palatable.
The biggest reason to be against white nationalists is that the don’t give a hit about poor whites, the wrong kind of white. It is only because black males are seen as surplus that they are treated the way they are.
The man is worth 200 million dollars, yet his wife supposedly had the ‘harder job’ raising their five children. Not just the ‘harder job’, mind you, but the more important job.
I did not like the pandering myself. I think the better approach would have been to effectively say that women’s issues are everybody’s issues, e.g. a good economy lifts all.
But at the time Mitt’s kids were young, he did not have that much money.
@gabbygabriella”Think of a soldier, or a policeman, or a firefighter. Those are very sexy jobs.”
Yes they are, they are also very dangerous and are demanding. Also, they are also low paying jobs and have unique statistics. Such as the very high divorce rate of policemen and the infidelity among the wives of the armed forces. Firefighters have a whole different set of problems.
Deti pointed out that women are not a happy bunch and will take it on those around them (my interpretation and experience as well).
Any attempt to make a woman happy is a waste of energy, just remember Eve was in the Garden of Eden and it wasn’t good enough
@ Michael:
An old joke…
Adam: Well Eve, here we are in the Garden of Eden. We’re going to live forever and always have perfect health. We’ll never run out of food or clean water, and the weather is always perfect here. Whatever we want or need, God will create for us as soon as we ask.
Eve: Yeah… it’s just not enough, is it?
Also extremely high suicide and addiction rates.
Depression, addiction, sexiness, and infidelity, sounds like the perfect badass beast for jesus’ beauty to tame.
Gabby: It seems appropriate that in reply to your notions about ‘sexy jobs’, I post something by the OG of MGTOW:
The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others, as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders, serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men, serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it. A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be “clay,” and “stop a hole to keep the wind away,” but leave that office to his dust at least: —
“I am too high-born to be propertied,
To be a secondary at control,
Or useful serving-man and instrument
To any sovereign state throughout the world.”
He who gives himself entirely to his fellow-men appears to them useless and selfish; but he who gives himself partially to them is pronounced a benefactor and philanthropist.
Three is all sorts of dar implications on the nature of female that sexy Jobs are almost exclusively the ones that involve murdering, killing, maiming and using violence upon other men.
Nah, better the Christian man not over think these things, the princesses in the pews surely don’t have dark hearts when the ooze over the nearby traditional men like soldiers and anders brevik
ybm,
I saw this comment you left on the Spearhead regarding traditional women and the election:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/08/30/presidential-campaign-devolving-into-rape-accusation/#comment-166175
I value your opinion and usually agree with what you have to say but I disagree with the haste with which you anticipate that women will change course. The main reason you cite for this is because of worsening economic conditions. Some smarter, older, traditional women see this. But they won’t be able to influence most women in this country. Their appeal is very limited. I think most women in America and particularly young women are not yet ready to give up on feminism and most certainly aren’t willing to relinquish the goodies it has brought them.
The man up shit won’t work. Only hypertraditional brainwashed Christian males such as those commenting on this site are open to such manipulation.
Lastly, I think the electoral college favors Obama. Also, most women will vote for Obama. I disagree with your prediction that Romney will win.
This isn’t a discussion about what makes a woman happy. Being happy all the time is an unreasonable goal for anyone…most especially women who are wired to be perfectionists.
My point is that sexy does not mean “criminal” or “lawless”. Sexy is masculine, protective, courageous…which can exist in a man who is a Good Christian.
The world is made up of good people and bad people and women generally want a man who they know can protect them from the bad people if necessary. It doesn’t mean they have to have a sexy job but just that they show some level of masculine protectiveness through their actions.
Who Cares What Women Think?
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/hbd-human-biodiversity/who-cares-what-women-think/
by Matt Forney
Oh I know not all women are like that, snicker.
I’m merely pointing out that murdering men is something that even the princess in the pews gets a little wet over. Masculine enough to spill a protestor (male) brains out at a ows protest, protective enough to murder 100,000 Arab civilians(men) to protect the homeland, courageous enough to die in a desert hole stinking like shit for the gals back home!
All women are like that. Those who deny it are destined for pain. Those who won’t talk about it are destined to change nothing.
That is a good one !!!
Btw, I have been reading the Book of Jasher or known as the Book of Righteous that is mentioned in the OT a couple of times and it is really fascinating since “it connects the dots” and and really fills in the details during that period in the OT. Though it isnt part of the canon, the interaction and human behavior support the scriptures and is believable.
I suggest taking a look at Chapter 44 for the details with the story of Joseph and the interaction of Potiphar’s wife – it is a worthwhile read.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/44.htm
You guys have shown your cards. I hope the readers take note.
ybm,
I typed a reply but for some reason it didn’t post. Too lazy to type the whole thing again.
Short version: The electoral college favors Obama. Most women will vote Obama.
Women and particularly young women are not willing to give up on feminism and certainly not willing to give up the goodies it brought them. Smarter, older, traditional women foreseeing economic hardships or what not won’t manage to change their opinions.
The man up shit won’t work either. Only hypertraditional brainwashed Christians such as those commenting on this site are open to such manipulation.
ybm,
My comments are not showing for some reason.
“Three is all sorts of dar implications on the nature of female that sexy Jobs are almost exclusively the ones that involve murdering, killing, maiming and using violence upon other men.”
– How do they feel about violence towards women
Oh please she-goddess tell me what cards have been shown?
Is it the card that says that even the so called perfect Christian beauty might have a dark side? That she may not be perfect? That she indeed does have a sinful character that will not simply grow naturally into a perfect goddess? That the Thanatos drive is instinctual even to Christian women, and therefore are not the “better” women they pretend to be in comparison to the ant war feminist?
Or is it the card that says we identify hypocrites when we find them?
Man up, men!
Can you be a sexy, deep walleted, MMA fighter?
Good!
You can join the line for a rubenesque reformed single Christian mom and her (small) brood!
Only the manliest of men with “impenetrable frame” need apply!
ybm,
I typed a response to your earlier comment but it didn’t post for some reason. Too lazy to retype the whole thing. Short version:
– The electoral college favors Obama. Most women will vote Obama. He will probably win.
– Women and particularly young women are not ready to give up on feminism and certainly not the goodies it has brought them. Older, smarter women might foresee economic hardships and the end of party times but they won’t be able to convince these women to change their ways and tempt the men back.
– The man up nonsense won’t work. Only hypertraditional brainwashed morons (many commenting on this site) are open to such manipulation.
Nas: much as our bestial ancestors, who absent a higher calling would murder the young and rape the female of the conquered, the women of the conquerors are largely indifferent to the plight of the conquered. They can be taken as slaves until their utility expires.
@gabby-“You guys have shown your cards. I hope the readers take note.”
Oh projection, i cant handle thee.
LOL
@gabbygabriella
“You guys have shown your cards. I hope the readers take note.”
Yes, I have a Full House; Aces over Kings, what cards do you hold or are you full of bluster and only bluffing?
Nas indeed as the dialectic outlined by rob notes: the election is merely the reflection of either progression of male marginalization or consolidation. Romney represents the continued marginalization, obam the acceleration.
I have heard women complaining about mens taste in women since …somewhere around my conception… and here men complain that women tingle for bad boys.
The women are just complaining that hey did not get the bad boys.
For completeness, “bad boy” in this case is not limited to true bad boys, but also includes “guys with edginess”
You guys treat people who sacrifice for others as chumps. I suppose Jesus Christ is a chump too?
I am not going to go into Code Red Shaming Language or anything but lets just say that you have betrayed your inner beliefs and it goes a lot deeper than hating frivolous divorce and chilimony.
You guys have shown your cards.
Basically, the house of cards are going to come tumbling down, as society will no longer be able to afford the cost of women having babies and foisting the burden onto everybody else.
gabbygabriella says:
September 1, 2012 at 3:38 pm
Ah at last! The attempt at reversal I have been hoping for!
Much has been discussed in this thread about the husband required to prove itself to his wife, you too have used this argument. Now we arrive: the utility is in the sacrifice! The mans ultimate utility is indeed, his own death! The empress truly has no clothes!
This is it Christian men, the ultimate truth the maestro of the mind outlined 75 years ago, the death instinct! Let no Christian woman ever again fool you, your life is only useful in the context of sacrifice and the Christian husband must at all times sacrifice all for the Christian wife, up to and including his own life (she invoked Jesus). If you do not do this, you are not sexy, and to the goddess, your utility is zero and she is justified in rescinding her half of the marriage contract based on her own internal criteria you will never know!
What she desires is to control BOTH the mans eros and thanes to her own uses, the very definition of man existing only based on his utility.
To understand, and reject her is to truly emancipate yourself.
The cards have spoken. Let them be shown, laid bare before us!
LOL! Priceless, the shame is strong in this one!
ybm says: September 1, 2012 at 3:49 pm
Post of the year!
Women should be willing to sacrifice too. They should lay down their life for their child if it is necessary. No aborting for “health reasons” or any other non-sense. We should all be willing to protect those weaker than us. That is altruism, and what separates the wheat from the chaff.
Ah for the child!
The man does not exist spake the goddess upon high!
Altruism she spoke to man!
Sacrifice she spoke to man!
Chivalry she spoke to man!
For the weak she spoke to man!
For the children, she whispered to woman.
All hail empress Lilith!
Oh, so now it’s ‘altruism’? Protection of the weak? Separating ourselves from the chaff through death and sacrifice? As a man, I only care for those that respect me, those that love and guide me and those that support me through times of trouble. These are the people I will sacrifice for because they would do the very same for me.
I was once hopeful that I would be able to find a wife who had those characteristics and was a virgin on our marriage night. Not so much anymore, reality has proven to be a harsh teacher. Sacrificing for the likes of you, DH and other disrespectful harlots brings shame and disgust to my soul. The real type of shame. A level of disgust so vile, it’s incomprehensible.
OH YBM, you evil man you! Dammit, think of the childreeeeeeeeeeen!?
@gabbygabriella – Action talk louder than words and show the true character.
Allow me to point out the frivolous divorce rate, unequal custody / support, of the husband / father.
Female altruism is at the expense of others.
By nature, when children enter in – you require support from your husband. Otherwise, you are in difficulty.
There are plenty of government programs in place that depict this.Do you think this burden to the government and the public is good?
gabby: If this is about the military, fine, I’ll lay down my cards alright. Those men took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Why, then, do they call ‘commander-in-chief’, and unquestioningly obey to the letter, the Constitution’s greatest domestic enemy, and stand ready to crush, by force of arms, anyone who shows him the least defiance?
But hey, living up to oaths isn’t important. Moral fiber means not shoplifting Metamucil.
ybm you are a strange poster but today you are on fire. You are also in full understanding of the MRM and the various paths men take to avoid being consumed by the beaste.
gabby
you wouldn’t die for your man gabby baby?
Gbfm taught me everything I know. Best mentor I ever had.
Feminist Hater says:
September 1, 2012 at 4:12 pm
“As a man, I only care for those that respect me, those that love and guide me and those that support me through times of trouble. These are the people I will sacrifice for because they would do the very same for me. :
Only my blood kin.
I usually restrict my real posting to private blogs and blackpill, but sometimes I just have to put some Realtalk in here.
@ ybm
“I’m merely pointing out that murdering men is something that even the princess in the pews gets a little wet over.”
Indeed, there was a story not long back about all the girls who had suddenly developed crushes on James Holmes, the psycho who shot up that theater in Colorado. How many of those girls would even give him the time of day if he were still a law-abiding neuroscience student? Probably none.
Not sure if Holmes had a girlfriend before the shooting; I’ve heard that he didn’t. But he were somehow released from jail he’d have more pussy thrown at him than he’d have time for. Maybe enough to make rock stars jealous.
I hope all christian men are getting this thread down and are realizing the importance of “game” (female psychology) That is in play here. The women commenting here are the same but some will behave and act in a very good way. Elspeth is bragging on her ma. That is sexy and good reguardless of what is thought to be her motives award the behavior. For a while it was looking like a pussy debate class but ybm has come to the conclusion that is correct and I am truely hope the churchians have come to the same conclusion.
To me it is very important for the churchians to become christian soldiers with game. Women will not change and cannot. But all women can be counted on to behave in her own self interest. A woman can wickedly and selfishly submit herself to her husband and christ with the same vigor and wicked selfish motivation to rebel. both are done in her own best interest. If there is one thing every man of god and faith must know and understand is that. As soon as that happens and churchians become christians with game feminism ends nearly over night in relative terms of the amount of time it took to get us here. Victory will not come from some enlightened apology from women. Fuck that anyway. It will be when the laws of misandry are quietly removed. a small story here or there of a woman sentenced to 10 years prison for purgery in a family court or for a life entence for murdering her boyfriend or husband.
There are some whiny men here. And aside from grumbling about welfare to single mothers (which is not that much overall, especially compared to corporate welfare) most of it comes down to boo- hooing that you are not getting laid or not able to attract the quality of woman that you want to attract. Kind of pitiful really.
Hahaha an awesome! I wonder when Jennifer will show up.
@SV “boo-hooing that you are not getting laid or not able to attract the quality of woman that you want to attract.”
You missed one – the quantity of quality women. Pretty short supply
Greghost, Christian men must recognize that all the women who hav posted in this comment thread are in rebellion. There submission is not to their husband, but to the utility he provides, it is Alvarice. They unfortunately hold legal cards currently, but as the best interests of the child movement takes hold, motherhood will be destroyed just as fatherhood has been. Depending on your views this is good or bad, but one without the other will lead to the end of both.
Bring the shame!
If only one gets pussy, then all is well. Don’t worry about Christian intent, nor faithfulness or virtuousness or valor. Oh, guess we can all go home now, Starviolet has solved it all.
If it eases your heart to think of us as immature, whiny and ugly men Star, please do so. Then you can also leave the blog, as such a place is obviously not the place for perfection such as yourself.
Women, on this blog today, have shown exactly what it is all about. Submit and sacrifice to the tingle of the pussy, for if you do not, then you’re a whiny man and quite pitiful really…
I don’t know about you fh but immaturity is a title for someone who thinks all the problems in the world can b solved by putting your cock in a vagina. This is the only power Anglo women seem to have left since they are finding fewer Christian men to shame into line. This is why I am against game in the mra, game is about pussy, and pussy ain’t shit.
I don’t think that all of your problems will be solved with sex, but I do notice that the “manosphere” commenters spend more time discussing sex than anything else. It’s all about who isn’t getting any and why and how they can game a woman into giving them some. Whining about what women fnd attractive and what they don’t find attractive. A few of your other concerns might have some validity but they get lost in whining about sex.
At least we get something back from corporate welfare.
StarViolet wrote:There are some whiny men here. … most of it comes down to boo- hooing that you are not getting laid or not able to attract the quality of woman that you want to attract. Kind of pitiful really.
The problem with this statement is that as a married Christian man, I had a wife who felt she had been hard done by men (thus, me). She used this condition against me, in alliance with pastorate, counselors, and friends to keep me in line. Not expect sex to be actually fun and uniting. “Hurry up and get it over with.” “How about a really fast quickie?” – Maybe 3-4 times a year. Only ever on her terms. If I wanted her to look nice instead of frumpy, I was put down – angrily. And all of this came from the empowerment of a pseudo-christian hierarchy that put the entire blame on my shoulders.
If I suggested reading “The Sexually Confident Wife”, I was the villain. If she wanted me to read about how to be a better husband, she was the glowing example of Christian wifery.
Yeah, I bitch about not getting laid. And, as a result, our marriage imploded. We had nothing to fall back on when the times got difficult. Of course, it was the difficult times that caused the lack of sex.
Why would. Christian woman be advocating getting laid anyway. Shows what Christian teaching means to Christian women.
Same old same old another worthless woman can only dangle the pussy hook to try and cover up her gross inadequacies as wife mother daughter and human being.
I won’t call you worthless, that is defined in your utility lol. Too bad pussy is abundant, you aren’t special, and as useful as a bicycle is to a fish f that’s all you ave to offer.
Or maybe calling you a fish would be more appropriate hahaha !
That couldn’t possibly be because, for men, sex is an intensely felt natural desire, that our culture seems at once to do everything it can to inflame and everything it can to shame, such that it’s increasingly difficult for an ordinary decent man to stay decent and win. Oh no. It’s just filthy pervs perving about their (tiny) peepees. Oooh, look at that hunky rockstar dude! *squeek*
This is why we can’t have nice things.
Starviolet says:
September 1, 2012 at 6:00 pm
I don’t think that all of your problems will be solved with sex, but I do notice that the “manosphere” commenters spend more time discussing sex than anything else. It’s all about who isn’t getting any and why and how they can game a woman into giving them some. Whining about what women fnd attractive and what they don’t find attractive. A few of your other concerns might have some validity but they get lost in whining about sex.
Don’t listen to that godless slut fellas. She most likely finshed having sex with two men at the same time.
Look she is only talking that trash because the law allows it. YBM is on a roll. Can I call you butter? baby
@coffeecrazed
That’s horrible. I understand that not having sex within your marriage is a serious problem. But a lot of the whining is about not having any outside of marriage or about not being able to attract a certain kind of woman.
That certain kind of woman by the way is a trashy American princess who blew guys like me in bathrooms in Milan while on vacation with the grrrrrrls.
Sad thing is that’s the best an american man can hope to get in America, I wonder why the only demographic showing growth in marriage is American men to foreign born women?
Nah couldnt be! The empress will not be left without!
Oh well, there’s always scumbags like me to empower you baby.
@Starviolet- my marriage was the same way. My ex-wife had premarital sex at a early age (15) and was frigid and didn’t enjoy it though she “thought” she did. To make matters worse – she was my first – the guilt and shame was a major head trip. Needless to say I learned a lesson and avoid promiscous women.
Gabby, it is a nice idea that women in their turn defend the weakest. But the reality is that if an unborn child is a nuisance, it is time for an abortion. Fifty million of them. Women have massively failed to keep their side of the social contract.
Grrrrrrllll power! Moxie, let the abortion reign supreme! Kill our unborn children, that will show them we care! 50 million abortions in America alone and still counting. Pro-Choice! Pro-Choice! Life means shit! Pro-Choice! It’s my body! Don’t tell me what to do! Pro-Choice! What ya gonna do, playa hater!?
DC,
Divide by ten for the approximate Aussie figure.
@Michael Singer
Your ex-wife’s reaction was extreme and her guilt is deeper than you think. In my opinion early sex does not make a woman frigid, but an abortion does. Abortion guilt never goes away and usually it was performed by a man with his fingers in her vagina. Then there are all the sounds associated with the abortion. The scars are on her heart and she dare not talk about it with anyone.
There is no social contract anymore, it’s in shreds in the dustbin of history.
It is hard to be on the pedestal with foetal remains slopping out of your vagina.
Aww star violet was probably almost there and you had to go and pull the verbal equivalent to coitus interruptus
I got a question for Starviolet or the others commenting here: What does the average American woman have to offer a man within marriage which is a positive and good thing to him? I’m really having a hard time seeing an answer to that one. Especially since it’s been well documented already all the negatives that they are offering to men now through their lack of commitment to marriage.
When all you can come up with is sex, people are going to dwell on that topic. Even when most all Christian women are “that certain kind of woman”, it’s really near impossible.
If she’s not capable of reining in her impulses at all, that’s a pretty good sign in and of itself she’s unfit for marriage.
@7man – I am bound to agree with you. She had endometriosis and hence no children during 19 years (all my fault of course:).
ybm – that is FUNNY !!!!!
Horseman I get where you are coming from but sometimes you just have to get them to blurt out the shaming language and turn the misandry up to 11 to really get through to people. We’ve said dalrock is really the gateway for lot of really Stockholm syndrome American Christian men, and sometimes only a powerful shock, from the horses mouth will make them see.
I don’t respond to debate, but to bait.
Tfh,
+1
@Starviolet
I agree that sex is easily the most frequent topic of discussion on blogs like this, though very little is actual whining. One reason is that men care about sex a lot. The main reason, though, is that sex is where some of the biggest cultural blind spots are.
@TTH – Holding a females feet to the fire is ingrained into boys/men of something NOT to do. So much for being “nice” .
When done as you mentioned quite often occurs is a ad-hominem on a entirely different subject using the Code Red Shame Tactics.
TFH: You’re right, of course, about the general lack of effect it has on hamsters. But they aren’t the only audience. I suspect a lot of people get the red pill down and keep it down, in spite of its very unpleasant taste, by watching these little discussions unfold.
Perhaps we should rate women posters in terms of their “hamster strength”.
SSM and CL have minimal hamsters…
@TFH
You could also say, as ybm did earlier, Tits or GTFO, if all else fails.
farm boy: I propose the name ‘Higgins scale’, after the genius who sang:
Why is thinking something women never do?
Why is logic never even tried?
Straightening up their hair is all they ever do.
Why don’t they straighten up the mess that’s inside?
Michael Singer.
Women gave up on being ladies. Men have to stop being gentlemen.
OK then, Higgins scale it is.
So is DH a 9?
I think we want to reserve 10 for something worse.
Gabby got a lot of gina tingles on this thread, courtesy of the hard work that men put in.
Well, she did admit that she was susceptable to tingles. It all makes sense.
One thing men have trouble understanding is how powerful the written word is for women. Some women here, not all, are probably getting off on what the men here say. I suspect there are feminists angrily diddling themselves to this blog.
Hah, yup. We’ve had more than a few come by in our time. Elspeth, Jennifer, dh, that guy named Clarence.
farm boy, I like the Higgins Scale.
We could also award occasional Eliza Awards (after Eliza Doolittle). These could be awarded for the dirty sluts who need to be taught how to behave.
Elspeth and Clarence are OK. I think Jennifer was getting off on the discussion though.
It’s always a good idea to be aware of whether you’re slipping into someone else’s frame and allowing them to derail a discussion. Sometimes it’s best to ignore counterpoints for the sake of maintaining focus on the core issue. But remember in online discussions the goal is not necessarily to convince the person you’re arguing with (although that is great when it happens), but to convince the audience.
And sometimes, the goal is to trade knowledge and insight. Many people of either gender fail at this one.
@David – agreed. It has become socially acceptable for for women to dress and act like cheap sluts – it is seen the churches.
To add, I prefer taking the high road while “wise as serpent and gentle gentle as a dove” or “nice is out while polite truth is in”.
Michael, women don’t respect nice. Very few at least.
Men civilise women. Women will be as slutty as men allow.
Forget polite truth. Time for blunt truth.
The problem is that lots of guys are logical, and when a non sequitur is thrown their way, the natural reaction is to try to correct it. Spock said to McCoy, “Emotions will be your undoing”. Well, in this case, Spock was wrong. Logic, at least without looking at the larger picture, will be your undoing.
@David – I agree. Have you seen Ann Barnhardt on the dictionary definition of “nice” on youtube ? Very insightful.
I am sure you have heard what happens when two Jews get together ?
The three of them argue 🙂
I have stood my ground many times over taking the high road – God has blessed&kept me many many times. I have learned to keep my cool, polite, and honest no matter what the situation is ( much like shadrach meshach and abednego).
David, I respect Elspeth’s honesty in admiting she chose tingles over Christ but I read/inferred no realization on her part that she did wrong in choosing tingles over Christ.
There was a third option – instead of choosing Christian nice guy or ungodly tingler, she could have sought a godly man who gave her the tingles.
I thought/hoped that she would pick that up.
The Christian women who post seem to either have sexed down the place in their youth, and then left the carousel for some churchman, or like, Elspeth, they find the non-Christian and try to convert them.
Neither behaviour should be encouraged.
@ Marlon, ” she chose tingles over Christ”
That is exactly the problem. By allowing fasle teaching such as lawless grace, eternal security, heaven as the goal, always a sinner, accept Jesus in your heart vs. what Christin discipleship and what the scriptures say will weaken and eventually destroy the morals of a person.
If one were to go to a psychologist and ask him what would be the effect on people if they were taught lawless-grace and eternal security, they would predict that such people would be weak morally. There is no concept of consequences.
Michael Singer
It is ok to kick them bitches in the ass. And to say so. With blunt un PC truth. And say it like you don’t care if she likes you or god. They be on both of y’alls jock then.
I do have a serious question for you and Cato Cane After a few days of this good conversations with the ladies here what is your impression of the christian man -up meme now. And the concept of the reformed slut.
TFH
This isn’t the spearhead and this crowd really needed the work out. It was some good training for the new guys and the just find the right girl bunch to see what is spoken about in various issues amungst MRA’s played out live. These women did not disapoint and I’d swear these where hired actors Dalrock put up in here to train the churchians to make christian men out of them.
Lots to think about. There is nothing wrong with nice. But you have to show a woman the stick before the carrot.
My wife sort of married me for the tingles, but I like being a Christian patriarch so she went along. To be fair, she has made her own spiritual progress too.
Michael, yes, if you keep cool and strong with a woman, it usually seems that God helps you with your household. Some bitch feminist was chortling on a feminist site that two of my three children are on the autism spectrum. That’s right. And I have kept the family moving along well by being a strong husband, not a mangina.
Many men here are serious Christians. Christianity teaches that women are morally weak and need male authority. That is the take-home lesson. The ridiculous behaviour of most women here illustrates this point. And, remember, women are not nicer than men, not unless they have no other option.
Starviolet
There are some whiny men here. And aside from grumbling about welfare to single mothers (which is not that much overall, especially compared to corporate welfare) most of it comes down to boo- hooing that you are not getting laid or not able to attract the quality of woman that you want to attract. Kind of pitiful really.
Feminist shaming language, right on schedule. Zillions of lurkers, take notes.
Looks like a bit of Code Blue but mostly Code Purple.
http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/
Feminism. We are all soaking in it, unless we actively reject it.
@Greyghost- “christian man -up meme now. And the concept of the reformed slut”.
Just because a women attends church doesn’t mean squat.
I’ll pass on both due to my personal experience, the credibility of the reformed slut, and the data of what is now available, and sites like this are simply a gold mine of information.
In regards to reformed sluts – The proof is in the changed life that should be evident over the years and verifiable. It took me a while to recognize this – but I simply dont take any Christian at face value anymore and especially a divorced Christian woman with kid ( I’ll pass on the co-parenting issue alone).
While I don’t doubt that God can reform / transform a person in His image – it takes a incredible amount of work, dedication, and discipline. That is simply not seen in the Americas church let alone American Christian women.
When one is abstinent in a courting situation – everything comes out- everything. Having tried this – I am seriously led to stay single (like PauL) and concentrate on Jesus and other things. If God wants to bring someone along – great. If He doesn’t – that is great too.
My taste has seriously changed to very feminine, modest, chaste non American women ( American women are a huge turn-off despite their outer beauty). While educated they have lost that inner garden that foreign women trump them big time.
Manning up:
I have little to no patience for unscriptural pastors presenting a unscriptural message.
Sometimes I have put them on the spot scripturally and other times I have left it alone and simply gone somewhere else.
Misc thoughts on having met/dated/courted “American Christian women” as a whole. Not interested. Entitled, rude, nagging, and stupid despite raised in a church. Not to sound arrogant or like a a-hole they dress and acts like sluts ( had 2 women pursue very hard recently “my standard reply is “off the market & thank you” . They still didnt “get it” and used shame tactics as a final result.
This isnt a slam against American Christian women – its not (While not have been given a good upbringing or example from the Church).
The church is simply shaming men to pay the price for their grossly inaccurate teaching.
It is the their fault for not holding women accountable or to the scriptures and men not leading a scriptural church /prayer life in the home family.
It is time for real men of God to study, pray, read, and take a stand against the grossly inaccurate destructive doctrines in the body of Christ when led by the Spirit.
1 Tim 4:15 Practice these things, devote yourself to them, so that all may see your progress.
16Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers ( and your family)
“And, remember, women are not nicer than men, not unless they have no other option.” – Touch’e
To a extent – But so does culture, breeding, upbringing, values, family and parents also play a significant role
Michael, you make a good point about Western women – so lovely on the outside, but so often filthy within.
Men civilise women. That is the crux of the matter.
How do men civilise women? By providing the protective services in society and laws. By providing their material needs: clothes, cosmetics, food, drugs. By providing strong religious leadership. By rewarding good female behaviour with marriage and a family.
Putting it in quasi-economic terms, the signals that women should be receiving have been replaced with perverse incentives. They should be learning from wise, loving, male and female relatives, and when married, listening to their husbands. Instead the signals they get are from people who don’t really care about them except as some kind of cultural cannon-fodder. That is, weak churchmen, feminists, predatory males, admen, captains of industry, and especially, male politicians pandering for women’s votes.
David C. said.
Agree.
Now, the issue is in part that the USA has been rich When you are rich, you can afford to be stupid. For a bit. If you are stupid for too long, of course, you become poor.
Instead of paying down their debt and getting their house in order… the US has allowed women to live without consequence, increasing the welfare state. Racking up debt. Destroying the moral and emotional structure of their society.
If you go too far down that path you find yourself bankrupt, without any courage, brains or ability to get out of trouble, leaning on an effete state… and tbe barbarians will come and take what was yours.
In the antipodes, the feminist tide turned when Helen left and Gillard stole the premiership. Political incorrectness, also known as truth, is again spoken. (It was not, under. Helen. or. Julia. Control freaks, both of them).. At least on the poorer side of Tasman (NZ) we cannot afford to be stupid and piss our remaining wealth away. The Greens, identity politics, and all the other effourescence of progressive politics are frills. Un needed. And if this society is going to survive, they will have to go,
Julia Gillard is still PM here in Oz. I don’t dislike her as a person, but she has done really badly. She appears to have stuffed the mining boom. She will probably be out on her arse at the next election. Australia survives by selling coal and iron ore. Gillard has introduced mining taxes and carbon dioxide pricing.
Good point about rich countries, Chris. Only a very rich country can afford full-blown feminism.
As I said on my blog, I now respect Putin more than Obama. Putin is a thug in a suit, but he is a serious man. Obama is a man playing the piano in a whorehouse.
Chris, yes on free speech. Gillard’s party is trying to muzzle the press.
http://whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.com/2007/04/top-ten-reasons-why-american-women-suck.html
Top Ten Reasons Why American Women Suck
1) Selfish – to the point where they don’t know the difference between love of self and plain downright greed–and drilled into believing that whatever happens is the fault of whatever man is in their life because of the feminist crud drilled into them by the cadre of asexual closet cases called “therapists” who appear on “Ricki”, “Oprah” or other such electronic drivel
2) Deluded – into thinking they “deserve” a rich, model-handsome husband who will “take them away from all of this”–whatever the “this” might be–and leading to resentment when they discover that the universe does NOT revolve around them
3) Angry – ALL the damn time about things which are so far out of their control as to be nonsensical–and constantly wanting to “discuss” this mind numbing drivel ad nauseam
4) Psychotic – multiple personalities in the same woman – as “Nomad” put it in the “Star Trek” episode: “Woman…a mass of inconsistencies…”, and also when the feminist voices in their heads start with the regrets and victim acculturation
5) Worthless – anything that does not immediately resolve itself in her favor or to her benefit is meaningless to her, especially husband and family
6) Lazy – drilled into their head that they “deserve” a maid, nanny and personal slave to take care of every detail – and that their husband/boyfriend is REQUIRED to cater to their each and every mindless whim
7) Resentful – especially of other women who have things that they do not, in material, spiritual and esoteric senses
8) Greedy – to them, “housekeeping” means getting the house in the divorce (thanks to Zsa Zsa for that immortal line) and sucking the guy for every last cent, even if they had nothing to do with the building of the nest egg
9) Mindless – constant, irritating, idle prattle about topics they read about in some women’s magazine and then become instant experts–particularly pop psychology and the latest crap they see on “Oprah” or “Ricki”
10) Vain – believing that they are irresistible to everything in pants and therefore are allowed to behave sluttish and without any honor
David, I respect Elspeth’s honesty in admiting she chose tingles over Christ but I read/inferred no realization on her part that she did wrong in choosing tingles over Christ.
There was a third option – instead of choosing Christian nice guy or ungodly tingler, she could have sought a godly man who gave her the tingles.
I thought/hoped that she would pick that up.
The Christian women who post seem to either have sexed down the place in their youth, and then left the carousel for some churchman, or like, Elspeth, they find the non-Christian and try to convert them.
Neither behaviour should be encouraged.
I had no idea being a Christian and having your spouse convert was a bad thing. Especially since as Christians we are called to do exactly that. Then again this is from a crowd who believes Jesus is a chump.
Sure, Elspeth made an error in not choosing a Christian man to give her tingles but does that really matter considering that she was 1. not a Christian before marriage and 2. even if Elspeth was Christian before marriage and waited for a Christian man to give her tingles there’d be an uproar about how she’s really a frigid woman who wouldn’t put out after marriage. In addition, she would have been admonished to go for a “man who can lead,” regardless of his faith because most people think Christian men tend to be chumps anyway.
Let’s be really honest here: a woman will never make the appropriate decisions to please PUA’s, MRA’,s Christian-pro Gamers, etc.
The worst place to find a woman in America is a church; especially a Southern Baptist church. I have a friend, Southern Baptist, whose wife just left him after twenty years. He has three daughters. She took two of the daughters thousands of miles away.
She hooked up with another Southern Baptist. My friend begged the other Southern Baptist guy to stay out of the relationship, and posed scripture to him: “he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery,” but to no avail. My friend’s ex-wife married the other guy just the same. In fact she was already scheduled to marry him before she left my friend.
American women are the worst in the world. The American Christian Church is Satanic. I think if Jesus and the Apostle Paul saw what was going on in the churches, they would be appalled.
David Collard says:
September 1, 2012 at 8:50 pm
Jennifer was famous for getting tingles here. Even hooked up with TFH a few times.
ybm says:
September 1, 2012 at 8:53 pm
“… that guy named Clarence.”
Rotflmao. I remember him. He very quickly got on to my ‘not to be read’ list.
Clarence and I often disagree. In fact we are debating right now on Complementarian Loners. But I have always found him OK.
Jennifer was just mixed-up.
When I see commenters at Dalrock’s blog making logical rebuttals to hamsterized women, I am saddened to conclude that a lot of red-pillers still don’t grasp that they are wasting their time, and actually rewarding some useless woman.
————————————————————————————
Hope eternal and all that I guess drives the men, some last vestige of chivalry, some past success with a woman in convincing her (this the men would do well to realize is not real and lasting change most likely)
Day by day I see men who are jettisoned by wives who are convinced that divorce is a separate sentient thing that is happening with zero overt effort from anyone, that somehow whatever the grievance she has against the man literally triggers the divorce like one of those contraptions that roll ball bearings through all sorts of loops and tubes, levers and buttons.
Then, these men are reawakened to their MGTOW understanding BUT they see their kids and the wife doing that to them and they wonder, if she can rationalize that, what more can she rationalize later? They are afraid and rightly so. They know they will lose the ability to have major influence on the kids, especially the daughters, as time and the 35% sharing that the US court “gives” as standard wither the relationships no matter how resolute he is and even if the mother pays lip service to being similarly resolute. Every BFF and sister and aunt and whatever they have is screaming you go girl.
They end up bankrupt with kids sharing 3 to a bedroom in some apartment with mom, and her empathy quotient goes ever upwards. When the empathy dies down, that’s when she seeks a new man in her life, he will be there for empathy by the conflict HE can bring. She can make new empathy from that with her friends, but also in a twisted way, the Christian woman can even make empathy from her own poor moral choices.
If she has sex with a new guy, she will *confess* that like a burden to her BFF(s), again, as if it is the sentient partner of divorce, sex happened Suzy, I don’t know how I was so weak, please pray for me.
This drama plays out, low key because what Ive described simply is NOT news worthy, it is only there for direct empathy for the woman, and vicarious empathy for the BFF’s. They have zero clue that this is what is driving them. These can be women who are vacuous and Oprah-fied, but it can also happen to women who seem more thoughtful, read real books that are not romance novels, and can carry a political conversation even into ideology. These things do not hinge on the shallow (valid) stereotype of the American woman that Singer posted above, they apply or rather CAN apply to almost every single one of them.
The men are shut down and shut out by the woman, the BFF’s, the family of the woman, the church and churchians men and women, neighbors or ex neighbors, and find either in being alone, or they don’t. These men even if they do not GTOW, drop out….maybe for a time, or maybe for good. They stop proper citizenship, they dont vote or care, they wander and some find distraction in unhealthy ways….a few end up blogging bitterly, some constructively….and
some end up attempting to rationally debate the Gabbys and Jennifers.
And
on the story goes
Full circle…
Reading backwards up the thread I found the comment that Obama accelerates the progressive morass and Romney maintains it as status quo…..and I agree.
But continuing on I figured out that this could be comparable to the conversations with most women here. Maybe all. The women posting that are the most agreeable represent the Romney, the others the Obama. And guess what they will vote that way too (if they vote at all).
I knew this already, most of us did, but the comment that said even when a woman submits herself to Christ and to a husband, the impetus is still self interest really got me. Its so true.
I risk that this lays a trap from which not a single woman can extricate herself in a damned if you do/don’t kind of way, and I am not trying to do that at all. Yet, it kind of is what it is. The only escape from that trap is not really to be known even perhaps by the women who may deserve to not be caught in it.
The obvious stuff is easy. The preacher describing a man loving as Christ then asking “what kind of women would not want to follow a man like that”……BAM for real.
J and K sell something even worse, asking what kind of wife would leave a man who literally exists to pander to her every minute emotional Piccadilly.
But the more obscured are those who speak very well about the good life of the submitted surrendered wife, how great the marriage is (+1 her), how attractive she finds the leader husband (+1 her), how safe she feels (+1 her), I could go on and on but her benefit is her imperative. I suppose to simply state that one submits because it is right and true thus spoke God, well that more closely represents the cold (yes, cold in some ways) reality.
The bible is not a list of features and benefits in a sales pitch. In fact its a list of opportunities to suffer for growth and the growth results in the possibility of ever greater suffering.
HOLD ON screams the butterfly, the snowflake, “I believe God wants us to be happy, I mean why even bother with all this including marriage if not for happiness?”
Well, when you figure out that thats a ridiculous question that reflects an utter misunderstanding of the very foundations if faith, you will be closer to true understanding of one of the pieces which we call marriage.
Not so much.
Reading backwards up the thread I found the comment that Obama accelerates the progressive morass and Romney maintains it as status quo…..
Romney is from a wealthy family with a history in politics. All his “businessman wealth” comes from government favor tax breaks and other quasi-legal/blatantly illegal behavior. There is a reason he “proudly refuses to” release over TEN YEARS of tax records. It’s absurd.
@ Anonymous Reader
“Feminism. We are all soaking in it, unless we actively reject it.”
Yep. It gets boringly predictable when you’ve seen in a million times.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/what-to-expect-when-you-debate-a-feminist/
I think it describes the debate tactics of fem-centrists of all stripes, really, not just feminists.
Whatever
Ok….Im not gonna debate something that vacant…
Back to original programing
> I propose the name ‘Higgins scale’ (unger)
As this is now a Disneyland Democracy, I would propose we use the unit of Fun!: the Disney, or the Lauper (for use in Greater Slutopia).
FH spoke longingly of “Dementedville” (I jest)… where the unit of dementia should be the Ilsa – after the 1975 movie Ilsa, She Wolf Of The SS (“Ilsa is an evil Nazi warden at a death camp that conducts ‘medical experiments’. Ilsa’s goal is to prove that women can withstand more pain and suffering than men and therefore should be allowed to fight on the front lines.” – IMDB)
Kinda the prototype for the modern feminazi. Others will certainly try to argue for the Gump, but that’s a derivative unit.
Laceagate,
Apparently I didn’t make myself clear.
I am saying that Elspeth should now be able to look back and see that that course of action she took was wrong.
“I had no idea being a Christian and having your spouse convert was a bad thing.”
Christians are supposed to choose Christians for marriage. (Your private blog is entitled “Traditional Christianity” so you should know that).
And I got the impression that though she left/rebelled against Daddy’s strict rule, she was still a Christian – just acting up.
Again to make it clear:
She chose tingles over Christ years ago but does not now evince any realization that “I did wrong even though it all worked out”.
Her story basically tells Christian males – leave church, bed and breed chicks, and then you’ll get sweet Church girls wet.
“Let’s be really honest here: a woman will never make the appropriate decisions to please PUA’s, MRA’,s Christian-pro Gamers, etc.”
Rubbish. I (and other posters) take CL seriously as she uses logic and no objections to SSM either.
But why use facts when you can dismiss us all and ride in on your white horse to save yon fair damsel?
Do you realise that Elspeth’s behaviour is common in church? (Though I think this behaviour is ultimately to the glory of God, as it will help destroy churchianity, and help the Christian males to seek Christ and walk away from the male-abusers and female-pedestalizers in the pulpit).
Elspeth is my kind of girl. She married a masculine man. Had five children with him. 18 years later she speaks well of her husband. I take that anyday. Infact I wouldn’t even concern myself with a christian woman stuff. Any woman that behaves like that is good to go. A christian woman I really think is a woman that tingles for masculine christian man It is all about the self interest and always has been. A churchian woman is one that just wants to be seeen as a christian women. All of that duties and responsiblity stuff is old fashion and sexist. The crime is the christian church made itself churchian to accomadate females (aka pussy worship) Look at focus on the family and the “churches” led by homosexuals and women.
This is the reason the MRA’s of the MRM brought up the subject of game (female psychology) for the church (christian church). Christian faith is men women have nothing to do with it. A woman that behaves properly is a “christian” woman and a woman that does not is some bitch and she needs to know that and feel it socially,and emotionally. before you know it wicked little self centered women will be christian women.
Thank you Mike Singer very interesting reply.
There are some whiny men here. And aside from grumbling about welfare to single mothers (which is not that much overall, especially compared to corporate welfare)
Single mothers cause FAR, FAR, FAR more social devastation that “corporate welfare”. If the country were “fair”, there would be a multimillion-dollar-per-head TAX on out of wedlock childbearing, to partially offset the massive social costs. Whereas most corporations ultimately benefit the country, and would be a benefit to the country even if their tax rate was zero. In fact if corporate taxes were zero, there’d be a lot more jobs….
Your welcome.
Here are scriptures on the “reformed slut” that hit me this morning – major emotional, spiritual, and mental damage.
Proverb 30:20 This is the way of an adulteress: she eats and wipes her mouth and says, “I have done no wrong.” (she eats/hides it – mouth-that is, she hides all evidences of her shame and then thinks herself innocent ).
Jer 3:3…….Yet, you have the shameless look of a prostitute, and you refuse to blush.
Deuteronomy 22:21then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father’s house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst
John 8:11 And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”
Hos 3:3Then I said to her, “You must live in my house for many days and stop your prostitution. During this time, you will not have sexual relations with anyone, not even with me.”
Proverbs 7 ( the whole chapter) Let not your heart turn aside to her ways; do not stray into her paths, for many a victim has she laid low, and all her slain are a mighty throng.
Her house is the way to Sheol, going down to the chambers of death.
The conclusion I came up for the slut, reformed slut, frivolous divorce women is to be totally avoided much like a “unclean leper” till “the fruit of repentance can been seen” in reputation, character, behavior, speech, genuine kindness, combined with modesty and bashfulness.
I know this sounds a bit rough but this is simply reverse engineering of the damage done.
The NT speaks of 3 different women in 3 different instances ( caught in the act, living with men, and a venal prostitute) while He did non condem them, they repented, and He forgave them – He also instructed them to go and sin no more.
And that is the catch – “no more bad boys rabbis, duplicitous relationships, or venal/financial gain” till it is out of your system and your life becomes Christ centered much like Mary’s at the tomb of Christ crying “Master”.
Shalom
re single mothers vs corporate welfare……
lets count the differences
i am not a fan of either, I assert however that there is actually a portion of each that has some altruistic merit.
There are single mothers that are widows for example. That welfare is fine, IF it came after the tragedy and was not an invitation to single motherhood.
Corporate welfare is not even a real thing in that its a term made up to disparage tax loopholes and incentives that indeed can each INDIVIDUALLY be debated on merit. Is there a need for incentive for certain production? ie. Oil/gasoline….well, if you drive and rely on it and say know you should get a cat scan. Ethanol? If you grasp the notion of energy balance and say yes still then you need a cat scan.
Corporate welfare at least has as an ostensible purpose to be an incentive for something for the greater good. That gets exploited and misused as sluch and favor funds for politicians.
Tell me, is there ANY valid reason to make an incentive, or at least remove consequence from at will single motherhood? Hell no!
Why are we comparing things anyway? Moral relativism is a feminist tool, one of the most effective, and it works equally well for progressivism which is a chicken or an egg to feminism anyway.
The conclusion I came up for the slut, reformed slut, frivolous divorce women is to be totally avoided much like a “unclean leper” till “the fruit of repentance can been seen” in reputation, character, behavior, speech, genuine kindness, combined with modesty and bashfulness.
Imagine a church actually run like that.
Christians are supposed to choose Christians for marriage
—————————————————————————–
Christians shall be equally yoked, and in this day and time I am not sure how to manage that. Im not looking for a spouse, have one thanks, but if I was I would likely see equally yoked differently than to say, again in contemporary terms, Christian men marrying Christian women.
I like Elspeth, and I think 99% of what some folks are finding flawed with her are not real things, but misunderstandings.
But forgive me Elspeth for asking or observing this one thing. I have not known of you nor read your writing or posts for that long to know the answer, so lets assume for a moment that a comment above is correct. Someone stated that you do not look back and openly admit that you did something wrong, never mind that it may have worked out and that you have ordered your life more less well and good bu Gods standards. This is a big deal for me because in my experience women (and most men) do not hold women, including self, to account for anything. There are work arounds for all accountability, “yes buts”…
I found this blog, maybe most/some of you have seen it, called The Peaceful Wife, and she does a pretty good job of confessing to being shrewish and controlling and she seems to have a lets say better grasp than most Christian women on whats up…..but she had a post about sex in marriage that was filled with “we shouldn’t reject him and we do anyway”….followed by BUT, and there was a series of paragraphs that were followed by BUT statements. They were overt work arounds, most of the time these are mush more clever. To her credit when I challenged it she removed them. Anyway this is not about her, i was using it as an example, and I dont think women even realize they do this. Its part of a thought process that requires the male influence to set it back on track.
That was a disjointed ramble.
Imagine a church actually run like that
—————————————-
Tried
can’t
TFH
It can not be over done the point of the female tingles. It has to be the frame with which to view women.
Well, in fairness to the women who come to blogs like this, it’s not like the men in their lives give them much to work with, if you know what I mean. If their experiences are anything like those of typical western women then they’re probably used to every man they interact with in real life pedestalizing them, pandering to them, and sucking up to them. Men like their husbands, boyfriends, co-workers, Facebook friends, and pastors. (Not to mention the presidential nominees of both major parties.) In fact, forums like this may be the only place they can go to actually have a man tell them: “No, you’re wrong. Very wrong. And here’s why…”
@marlon”She chose tingles over Christ years ago but does not now evince any realization that “I did wrong even though it all worked out”.”
Life isn’t quite like that- it doesn’t “just work out”. It isn’t over yet and I guarantee there are some rather disturbing behavior traits that she overlooked and is forced to live with. In addition, she is stuck with 5 kids. God is/will use this situation to turn her into a saint and teach her a lesson about “leaning not on your your understanding” – every action has a consequence and life isn’t fair.
Her only option is be the best Christian wife she knows how, pray, and hope he really buys into it when it gets really tough. Trials come in the form of $$$$, relationships, and health and sometimes all at once ( like Job)
Btw, Elspeth I am not condemning you. I unknowingly did the same thing with my ex-wife due to a glandular urge. Biggest mistake and learning lesson in my life.
Tried
can’t
Faith in the lord. Not good for churchian receipts but damn good for the lord and the building of masculin christian male character.. Also will give a good safe haven for the girls on the margin who don’t wish to ride the carousel.Give a girl a herd to follow that is the best you are going to get. Check this out and think of the “douch bag as a christian man wearing a t-shirt that says “no rings for sluts”. http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/wrapped-around-his-finger/
@Retrenched “it’s not like the men in their lives give them much to work with…..they’re probably used to every man they interact with in real life pedestalizing them, pandering to them, and sucking up to them. ”
Permit me to say that does not work in a relationship or marriage. If a relationship – she will dump him. If a marriage – pedestalizing/pandering stops pretty quickly. Men get sick and retaliate if they have to beg for sex.
If ones needs are not being met – they will eventually get met whether inside or outside the marriage. In the old days, men would cheat( still do) or divorce their wives ( downward trend due to mis-justice) now womens expectations have become so ridiculous that they cheat and divorce and then realize just how good they had it prior divorce.
Quite honestly, men dont have much to work with the stupid, promiscuous, entitled, feminized, American “Christian” venal strumphets who think 50 Shades of Grey is not pedophile pornography or Magic Mike is a suitable movie.
A female work friend of my wife has lent her Fifty Shades of Grey.
The biggest womens’s magazine in Australia is The Australian Women’s Weekly. Very large circulation. (It actually comes out monthly these days, but as some wit remarked, you can hardly call a magazine The Australian Women’s Monthly). Anyway, there is an article referenced on the cover (I haven’t read it) titled “50 Shades: the Boom in Female Porn Addicts”.
I like Elspeth too, by the way. We all make mistakes and have to muddle through. She is a pretty good wife, from what I can tell.
Like, wow
http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2012/09/02/obamanation-of-the-day/
Wow is right.
There is no god but Obama, and Axelrod is his prophet.
@ Empath:
Yes, I am fully aware that what I did was wrong, as is my husband. We have repented, made our peace with God, and made every attempt to honor him in our marriage and the raising of our children.
We have been brutally honest with our young adult children and do not want them to make the mistakes that we made. He had a child already before we married so we have not had the luxury of withholding realities from them. We know that we have beaten the odds and have been very fortunate with the life we have built and shared.
Holy shit farm boy, did he really say that?!
As for being my seeming unapologetic: We’ve done our time in sackcloth and ashes, and my husband doesn’t see the need (nor do I) for repeated pleas for understanding after 18 years of faithful marriage.
None of our past sins negate the reality that a man can be strong and unapologetically masculine as a Christian without betraying his faith, which was my point from the beginning.
You have a 1,000 comments on here!
You need a forum.
You guys attacking Elspeth are wrong this time. If you don’t burn for someone, you shouldn’t marry them. This right here is why Christian men need Game.
We’ve done our time in sackcloth and ashes
Exactly.
CL and Elspeth are right. Don’t marry someone whom you don’t really, really want to have sex with ASAP. My wife and I made some mistakes too, but we have lasted. God’s grace.
Ok, then. F. Roger Devlin, in his review/critique/essay regarding Wendy Shalit’s books on modesty, ponders thusly…
“In this book as in her last one, Shalit offers no thoughts about what is to be done with the majority of men who are less than tailspinningly attractive. This, however, is a critical question for any society. It is not simply a matter of hurt feelings. Frankly, no one has ever cared very much about the feelings of such men, as they themselves learn early and well.”
Advocating game for such men, which is the default suggestion these days, is just putting the onus entirely on men. What else can be done to cause women to open their erotic blinders to more men, to use Devlin’s phrasing?
Re this: Actually if most people who are regular church attenders were genuine (read honest about themselves and their motives) they would provide the exact same answer. Obama is only getting criticized because of his position and because he happened to be *too* genuine in that particular moment and didn’t lie.
The Personal Jesus is strong in a great many people. The worship of self through Personal Jesus is the national religion, whether there are those who want to admit it or not.
Martian Bachelor, the secret for such men to make themselves attractive to women is simple. They should treat women as inferiors. The biggest mistake men make with women romantically is to treat women as equals. (Never mind if they are or are not.) Once a woman thinks she is your equal, in your mind, she will look for a better man.
The usual disclaimers apply.
@David Collard – Very true and allow me to suggest they are inferior in specific regards.
Something that I read from Opus here – “Of Women by Arthur Schopenhauer” that holds the right frame in my opinion and experience and makes quite a bit of sense explaining their behavior – it is a worthwhile read.
“A man reaches the maturity of his reasoning powers and mental faculties hardly before the age of twenty-eight; a woman at eighteen. And then, too, in the case of woman, it is only reason of a sort–very niggard in its dimensions. That is why women remain children their whole life long; never seeing anything but what is quite close to them,cleaving to the present moment, taking appearance for reality, and preferring trifles to matters of the first importance.”
Their greatest strength is their their greatest weakness- the ability to stay young if they dont grow bitter due to the consequences of their actions. There are far to many who willingly ignore disarming the rationalization hamster and quite often it is too late and the result is fate acompli.
Yes, I am familiar with Schopenhauer. My wife is still very childlike in some ways, and I find it lovable. I am not sure if women are inferior to men, but they are certainly not superior in any way. I am mystified as to where that notion came from.
Women will never admit this, but they want to mate with a superior.
Holy shit farm boy, did he really say that?!
The interview seems to have happened in 2004. I don’t know why we have not heard about it until now.
Guess that settles it, tingle over everything else. Well done, you’ve solved the world’s problem. Now all we need to do is make men submit to the pussy and learn to give women the tingle and keep giving women the tingle. Welcome to the service of women, gents! You’ve earned it!
Never mind though, women only tingle for the top 15 % of men anyway. Shall we kill off the other 85 %? Perhaps teach them the proper way to commit suicide, cleanly and quickly? They’re useless either way. They just don’t give women the tingle!
Advocating game for such men, which is the default suggestion these days, is just putting the onus entirely on men. What else can be done to cause women to open their erotic blinders to more men, to use Devlin’s phrasing?
This question needs to be asked by all every day and is the basis for a civilized society. The onus is put on men because men can handle it. It only feels unfair because we are immersed in feminism and have equality on the brain. When women are feral they only see 20 percent of the men period. And that 20 percent is not the best we have to offer as a society. Also the natural tendany to do what is her best interest (normal woman defective man) causes her to lose the tingle for the nice guys. My best reasoned guess for something you know and then try to explain it is based on the childlike nature of women. Women just don’t care for respomsibility that hamster of rationalization can do battle with that and when every time to the point where a woman can kill her child in her best interest. The rebellion against the church is about any duty or judgements the love me the way you love christ is good to go. Simply putting judgement and standards with accountability back into the lives of women will bring the majority of men back into view. This whole comment is speaking on the tingle. A masculin man removes that hysteria of responsibility at the emotional level and aloows the tingle flow freely. The nice guy in a practical sense does the same thing as a provider and protector thow in feminism and female priviledge and entitlement and the tingle is gone. And a perfectly good honest man is divorced and punished by society because she wasn’t happy.
Never mind though, women only tingle for the top 15 % of men anyway. Shall we kill off the other 85 %? Perhaps teach them the proper way to commit suicide, cleanly and quickly? They’re useless either way. They just don’t give women the tingle!
This is a good sign Dalrock. Good progress is being made here. They are not dummies either and a solution is coming.
Life isn’t quite like that- it doesn’t “just work out”. It isn’t over yet and I guarantee there are some rather disturbing behavior traits that she overlooked and is forced to live with. In addition, she is stuck with 5 kids. God is/will use this situation to turn her into a saint and teach her a lesson about “leaning not on your your understanding” – every action has a consequence and life isn’t fair.
Michael is partially correct. Our life has not been without it’s challenges. Still, we have done okay overall and I am still very attracted to him as he appears to be to me. It’s more than we can say for most couples we know. That matters when the going gets tough, folks.
Thanks CL and DC for getting it even though I know it wasn’t right or perfect or even remotely Christian the way I chose my husband. It seems that I am supposed to say at some point here that there are regrets. Plenty, LOL, but not one of them have to do with marrying my husband. It would sound more righteous to say “if I had it to do over again…” but that’s a useless exercise. The choice was made.
At the time, I was more Churchian than Christian anyway. I had never truly embraced the faith as my own. It was simply the way I was raised. Maybe it’s a cop out to say that, but it’s true nonetheless. My husband pulled me into a deeper faith when he converted.
What else can be done to cause women to open their erotic blinders to more men, to use Devlin’s phrasing?
Step 1: Make life really hard on welfare mommies. Welfare reduced to barely above survival.
Step 2: Get rid of no fault divorce. Women who divorce because some other guy made her tingle will end up in the trash bin
My husband pulled me into a deeper faith when he converted.
————————————————————————
This story is one that plays out frequently in todays evangelical community, the mega churches, the churchians and the Personal Jesus (TM) followers.
The single men come to these churches maybe in an effort to start trying to live better lives or meet some friends or do some activities or whatever. They meet the woman who is a Personal Jesus (TM) convert. They think they found a gem. They marry. This man was not a Christian and his ex wife was not either, and its all new to him and feels kind of good, upstanding, he is just a better person with a better life.
But he cracks open his Bible, or starts reading apologetics, or listening to or reading excellent exegesis and he is struck the way men are prone to be with a searching urge and a calling to follow through and along the way he penetrates the veneer and has an encounter with God. Note I said God, I didnt say Jesus, and I do not wish to get into a debate about the sameness of that, or the differences of that, I’m saying it that way for the simple reason that it better represents what the man experiences, something massive and awesome, he is moved on all his levels, not just his emotions and meeting his emotional needs.
Sure some men go that route and others waste lots of time pretending to. That renders them helpless supplicants. God imbues them with something grandiose and maybe he leads the family where he treads, or, he doesnt.
Im not saying this describes your life Elspeth, Im recounting maybe my own experience as I was the unbelieving man married to a life long Christian raised woman. Thankfully we ended up in a church (for a couple of years) that was not selling Personal Jesus figurines and I had my encounter. That has made it all the more difficult then as we moved around and found ourselves in the other churches full of Personal Jesus folks.
The point is that thankfully men CAN do this, they can break the veneer of churchianity and get deeper, men are IMO more likely to do so, and God help us if more do not do it.
Farm Boy
Those are good ideas, they will not change the blinders though. It best women would do what they had to, but what they are drawn to do would not change. THAT is an act of God in the main.
Step 3: Coach boys to be men
Step 4: Coach girls to actually be women, not the monstrosity we see today in the Anglo world
Tingle über alles, except when the choice is shameful spinsterhood poverty
What else can be done to cause women to open their erotic blinders to more men, to use Devlin’s phrasing?
The short answer is that they have no incentive to do anything else, as the system is stacked in their favor. Perverse incentives and all that.
Never mind though, women only tingle for the top 15 % of men anyway. Shall we kill off the other 85 %? Perhaps teach them the proper way to commit suicide, cleanly and quickly? They’re useless either way. They just don’t give women the tingle!
I was one of these boys who didn’t give the tingle. The “he’s so good and the girl who ends up with him will be a lucky one (but I don’t want to be that girl)” kind.
I can assure you that the day will come when you will see not having given the tingle to girls as a blessing.
Tingle über alles, except when the choice is shameful spinsterhood poverty
I’m not sure this situation is not the best one for men. I have experienced the patriarchy when I was a child (it had disappeared when I was young). Most women didn’t marry because they were in love but because they were completely horrified about the possibility of ending up spinsters (back then, a girl married their first boyfriend: nobody wanted a woman who had had a boyfriend before).
When they were married, it was obvious who loved whom. The amount of sh*t and demands these women placed on their husband was incredible. The men had no way out because there was no divorce. The woman was the boss and the man was the slave.
To be accurate, there were a minority of women who married for love. An aunt of mine married a very masculine soccer player who became a businessman (my uncle, of course). They have been very much in love all their life (they are about 80 now). She treats him like a king. But this was a minority. I know hundred of couples formed in the patriarchy but I only know two or three happy marriages.
Now a beta may not have the love of a woman but, at least, he has no duty to slave himself to support a woman who despises him.
Martian wrote:
theprivateman has a fantastic recommendation:
http://theprivateman.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/a-dating-exercise-for-women/
Also check out the blog report from a woman who took the challenge and her account of what happened:
http://theprivateman.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/a-dating-exercise-for-women-amazing-follow-up/
Farm boy
shameful spinsterhood poverty
I know you want to say it involuntary childless spinsterhood. A 17 to 18 year old girl graduates fro highschool and heads off to college she will decide to mount the cock carousel The results must be childless spinsterhood. At present it is voluntary (her choice) My goal is to make it with a male birth control pill involuntary. There will be hell on earth when the revolt against pussy comes. The christian man must be prepared for these women and the last thing they need is for some jack ass churchian telling these women she is a victim of men not wanting her. No, a christian man has to stand up and tell her she is a victim of her making herself undesirable and her misery is as it should be. Churchians must be christian men with game.
Let that get out and watch how fast the tingling for gods men starts. And I swear to you the next day it will be as if feminism never happened.
Elspeth you are beautiful woman and your story needs to be the norm. After all of those years and children you speak well of your husband. Christian men want their wives in abstact or not to tell your story. The churchian teachings these men are given make it impossible. That is what we are here to work on one step at a time.
Dalrock had another great recommendation which is to calibrate attraction by controlling the venue. https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/calibrating-attraction-by-controlling-the-venue/
In other words because alpha is relative to a particular setting, think of the kind of guy you find attractive and what setting he’ll be most attractive, and go find him there.
I noticed this quite a long time ago when women would complain about being hit on in the gym (here’s a recent example as a blog comment at bronan: http://bronanthebarbarian.com/2011/01/14/new-years-resolution-gym-etiquette-for-dummies/#comment-193). While certainly, guys going to hang out at the gym specifically to pick up women are likely annoying, I’ve found this to be a very common attitude and it always struck me as exceedingly dumb. Why should you rule out the gym as a place to meet potential partners? Why spend the entire week going to a gym surrounded by men you ignore, only to go out to a bar Friday night specifically to meet men?
1,000 comments, wow.
Anyone want to summarize 😛
Lad
your post is a good way to direct the herd. With the incentive of spinterhood all the better. never forget women go for what is in their own best interest. One of their interest is status within the herd and that is based on what ever is trendy at the moment.
1,000 comments, wow.
Anyone want to summarize
Tingle uber alles
“He contrasts this to the untamed brutes men will naturally become if not lead by a wife:”
Shorter Mohler: “… slugs and snails and puppy-dog tails … boys are horrid … ”
Doctor Mohler! I urge you to DYOR
Iamnobody, I agree that patriarchy yielded a facade of traditional ordered marriages. Im a middle aged man of 50, and the generation of my parents, and even their parents, i watched and saw what you point out.
Hell you can see it by going to a diner or a McDonalds in any medium or small town and watch the older couple sitting over coffee with scowls on their faces, the only talking is done by the woman, and the man merely nods because he has been hearing it for decades.
Listen to John Prine’s “Hello in There” and think about this topic here. The guy calls up Rudy, how’r things , nuthin much whats with you, nuthin much to do……
Depressing
But this doesn’t negate the patriarchy, this negates another form of stealth matriarchy. There has not been a consistent and real, solid patriarchy since the industrial revolution with the possible exception of small outbursts during the world wars….by the Korean war and after, not even war created patriarchy outbreaks that were real.
The patriarchy can only function correctly under a few conditions
The woman absolutely MUST have it, and the work of survival fosters cooperation in the home
The man somehow , what, games?…leads well? something like that and creates the need for him by addressing needs in her she doesnt even know or want to know she has for leadership
Women are boxed in by the church (speaking of Christians here), and the community of believers and left shamed if they do not settle into it.
I thought and wrote this fast so my little list leaves lots to desire, but you see my point, it doesnt suggest that the tingle faction is a better system. The tingle in fact will always exist, always, in men and in its male equivalent. That’s what self control is about.
imnobody,
How and when did the patriarchy disappear in your country? Would this happen to any country (human society) that becomes rich enough?
Here is an example of where beauty well tamed the beast, as told by a police officer in London.
http://mattdelito.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/the-n-bomb/
Briefly, a guy was being a serious A-hole, and was about to be arrested. His wife then told him that if he did not act properly, he “wouldn’t get any blow-jobs for the rest of the year”. The guy immediately changed his behavior, and the police officers let him go.
@imnobody – Thank you for taking time to blog and your insight.
Could you please further explain “I can assure you that the day will come when you will see not having given the tingle to girls as a blessing.”
I have some ideas but they lack substance.
Many thanks !
@Nas
It was during the 80s while I was a teenager. The process was pretty fast. The 70s were very much patriarchal. The 90s were definitely matriarchal, although less than in the United States. My country got out from a Catholic dictatorship in the middle 70s: this is why patriarchy lingered for so long and why matriarchy came so fast. And yes, I think money played a main role. My country quickly become a rich country and culture changed.
I think cultures have a cycle: they start patriarchal and end as matriarchies. The ancient Rome started very much patriarchal but after the Second Punic War money flowed to the Republic and quickly became a matriarchy: promiscuous women, easy divorce, use of contraceptives, declining religion. During the last centuries of the Roman Empire there was a saying “Rome rules the world and women rule Rome” (they do in every society but in a matriarchy this rule is overt).
The same happened with ancient Greece or the Abbasid Baghdad. When Rome was decadent and matriarchal, the barbarians were raising and patriarchal. When ancient Greece was decadent and matriarchal, Rome was raising and patriarchal. This is why, when Greek king Pyrrhus of Epirus defeated the Romans, he said “One more such victory will utterly undo me”. As Plutarch says: “For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and […] there were no others there to make recruits, […] On the other hand, as from a fountain continually flowing out of the city, the Roman camp was quickly and plentifully filled up with fresh men,” Rome was patriarchal and hence had a high birthrate and a lot of men to fight while Greece was matriarchal and her low birthrate provided low amount of men to fight (This is the origin of the term “Pyrrhic victory”)
When people are poor, they strive for survival. Women know that having a husband is vital for their survival. Older women force young women to marry the man with a stable economic position and love is not important. In a rich country, money is abundant and women can survive without a husband. So they unleash their tingle.
@Michael Singer.
It’s easy. When you see how the men who gave the tingle when you were young have ended up ( divorced, ruined because of their ex-wife, in unhappy marriages), you count your blessings. When you see how are the women whose kiss you have died for, you count your blessings. Now, you can have women 20 years younger. You are free and you know women.
One of my cousins was a natural alpha. Women were behind him. He has ended up with a wife who is completely overweight, domineering and angry. I used to wonder: “How is he so completely dominated by this cow?”. I ended up concluding that nothing teaches more than failure and my cousin, having had no problem with women before, didn’t know how women were.
@imnobody – thank you for the insight. The problem still remains despite having women 20 years available ( I have dated 17 years younger) – they are spoiled despite the younger age. American women are simply ruined as well as the economics, political, church, legal system, and morality. Foreign wife may be a possibility – but I have seen foreign women turn feral and hypergamous on good American men ( solid pre-nup helps but there is no guarantee).
How much time do you give America before civil war and/or outside war ?
@Michael Singer.
You may remember I live in a Latin American country. Although local women are not like the crazy American cows, I cannot recommend any man to marry them even if he lives here and he doesn’t bring them to the States (as I do). Without a real patriarchy, women milk the system for what it’s worth. They can’t wait to be married and, then, they can’t wait to be divorced (yes, yes, I am talking about Latin women). The country I live is full of single moms and divorced women. The only advantage is that they have not caught the feminist virus nor the pedestalization virus. And child support payments are reduced here.
My solution has been enjoying them while it lasts and not thinking about the future. Then, when they start giving me shit, dump them and repeat. No marriage, no kids. I guess this is not the solution you would like. I think that our age is very hard for traditional men who want family and a sense of meaning.
I don’t think it will be a civil war in America but civil unrest and riots, when the financial system breaks. This will be followed by more repression (police, etc.), more taxes, less benefits. Everybody will be poorer and America will have a slow decline to the irrelevance.
A civil war requires organization. Each part requires to be organized and to have a central command. Modern society is not this way. Following Rousseau’s dream, population is completely atomized. All the structures between the State and individual have been reduced to irrelevance or co-opted by the State.
A discontent citizen can buy a gun and start shooting, can be a part of a demonstration, but war requires an army with the ability of taking coordinated measures. This takes millions of people willing to coordinate themselves. This takes lots of organization. I don’t see this in America (nor in the other Western country).
But it won’t be as fast as many people in the manosphere think. From the beginning of the decline to the fall of the Roman Empire, there was about six centuries. Now things unravel faster (because today’s communications increase the pace of history) but I don’t think we are at the verge of a civilization collapse.
But I could be wrong: Nobody knows the future and history gives us ideas and models, not a blueprint for a prophecy.
imnobody,
Thanks for your response. I suspected from your previous comments that you were from Spain. I think I buy your idea of cultural cycle but I have to give it more thought. I also appreciate the historical examples you chose.
I was hoping however that you would go more into detail of the “how?”. I remember your disagreement with Hollenhund on this forum where you argued that women very reluctantly gave up on patriarchy. I think I have a somewhat good understanding of feminism in the US and the pedestalization that always existed but I was wondering how such a cultural shift happens in other places. How did the women of your country give up on patriarchy? Is it just that one day women realized that they can make enough money of her own and thus no longer need to put up with a man she resents?
@Nas.
Interesting question. I’ll answer tomorrow. Now I’m so tired and sleepy…
Once the feminist movement has co-opted the power of the state, its all over for the patriarchy.
Cash and prizes for all women, by the stroke of a pen! Enabled by betas with guns.
Marxist to the core. To rephrase, “from he that has, to she that has need. . .”
1000+ comments, and not even one by Brendan?
Blech.
I miss older Dalrock post threads…
Are you sure Will? Keeping track of 1000 comments requires a computer.
Now, if men are prepared to fight back at the heretical teaching coming from pulpits that pedistalizes women and we start bluntly teaching ideas such as submission, obedience and keeping each other continent, we may get somewhere.
I’m not holding my breath.
we start bluntly teaching ideas such as submission, obedience and keeping each other continent, we may get somewhere.
I’m not holding my breath.
Smart move there Chris. You can’t teach that it is impossible and shows a total lack of game. Not all is lost. That behavior can be and has been normal and enjoyable when it is in their own self interest. At all cost christian men need to be broken of the idea that a woman will or even has the capacity as a living being to do or think of anything that is primarily in the best interest of someone other than themselves. It is normal and has always been that way.
@ Chris: “Are you sure Will? Keeping track of 1000 comments requires a computer.”
And what do you think I’m typing this on; a typewriter? 🙂
As I always say, the patriarchy is older women’s rule, while the matriarchy is younger women’s rule. There has never been a men’s rule and they will never be. IOW, the patriarchy is a matriarchy in disguise (for more details, read Chinweizu).
In traditional patriarchal Spain, women ruled. This was an established fact and it was admitted by men, who made all sorts of jokes about who was the boss at home. I could tell you some of them. But I digress…
All patriarchy has a fundamental tension between older/married women (who are the enforcers) and younger/single women (who are tempted to break it). Young women are romantic, their tingle is harder, they have less future orientation, they are more emotional, they have not lived enough to see the consequences of their behaviors, they believe in love, they read romance novels and so on and so forth (read Madame Bovary).
Even in the most closed patriarchies, there are some young women who defy the family authority (read: “the older women’s authority”) to escape with her lover. This brings shame and dishonor to the family and make their sisters harder to marry (read Jane Austen for some detail). This is why older women try to forbid this behavior as much as possible. But the fact that, in spite of this strong authority by older women, some young women are able to do that, it shows this tension is there. This tension exists in all patriarchal cultures and it is the base of romantic tales and legends (the young women who burns with love with a forbidden men – forbidden by her family- Romeo and Juliet, yaddah, yaddah .
This tension is why older women need to police younger women and men in order for the patriarchy to perpetuate. This means having detection systems (to detect young women and men who are cheating: that is, not following the patriarchy’s rules) and punishment systems (to apply to the cheaters so their bad example is not imitated by other young women).
In traditional Spain there were two detection systems:
– When a young single woman got pregnant, this was a sign she had not been “decent” (a term who meant “chaste”: I have not heard it for the last 20 years but being “decent” was the first requisite for a woman to be considered a good woman).
– When a woman was seen alone with a man, their reputation was irremediably broken, even if nothing has happened (this can also be found in “Gone with the wind”).
There were two punishment systems: shotgun marriage (“matrimonio de penalty”, other expression that remembers me my childhood for pregnant women whose lover could be known) and “slut shaming” (nobody wanted to marry a woman who was not “decent” so they ended up as spinsters and as a cautionary tale .
The problem is that the detection systems started failing during the late 70s and it take some time for society to change.
– With the pill a woman could have sex without getting pregnant so it was impossible to police the sexual behavior of young women. Nobody can know what happens behind closed doors…
– During the 60s, the Spanish population became mostly urban. Urban anonymity makes impossible to know what woman is doing what things with what man.
Older women could not police the sexual conduct of young women anymore. Young women were able to remove the yoke they have been wearing for millennia. To be fair, only a handful of women did it at the beginning. Most young women remained “decent”. But once men start to try the sweet fruit of sex without commitment, there is no turning back. Young women start competing for the desirable males by giving them sex. And the sex arms race begins…
According this article, there was a similar process in the States:
http://www.angryharry.com/esTheSexualLiberationofWomen.htm
In summary, older women didn’t abandon the patriarchy (They remain very much patriarchal today, for example, my aunts). But they couldn’t enforce the patriarchy on their daughters anymore. Some young women were more prone to be promiscuous (they have been controlled by the patriarchy but this was not possible anymore). Young women who wanted to remain in the patriarchy (there were: they wanted to be virgins at marriage) had to compete with these promiscuous women for men. They were at disadvantage so they started having sex too…
Of course, there were other factors: the Spanish elite was ashamed of having participated in the Catholic dictatorship and was eager to prove that it was democratic, modern and European. So they adopted the liberal gospel with fury. Losing the Catholic rationale for virginity until marriage, enabled all this process of transition to the matriarchy. But what I have described is the main cause…
I hope this answers your question, Nas.
Note what he says about young men
http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-terrifying-new-normal/?singlepage=true
Thank you very much imnobody. The question ultimately seems to be, do we want civilization to survive or not?
@imnobody – many thanks again. Very insightful. However, I am in disagrement with the paceof pending civil war in America given history past the Roman era. Civil war or war against the in government in power has moves much quicker and is dependent on the financial state. Consider socialism in Russia as well as Hitler in Germany. Btw, the Social Security office of the United States just purchased 170,000 rounds of hollow point .357 rounds……
@farm boy
Civilization will survive but it won’t be ours (Western civilization). When a civilization enters a phase of decline, it is impossible to save because historical forces are overwhelming. A young man eventually becomes an old man but an old man cannot become a young man again. There are processes that are one-way. Everything has an end.
imnobody says:
September 4, 2012 at 11:40 am
I assume you are implying Islamic culture will be the civilization of the future. The Arab revolutions have entrenched feminism in the Maghreb and their own birthrate is below replacement. So to in Arabia where the population growth is occuring among (non-Islamic) workers from the Phillipines and India.
As Europe has restricted the pressure valve that was immigration out of the middle east, we saw how the stereotyped patriarchal Arab was made low by the urban youth. The second of the two horsemen has already developed in the middle east, a youthful urban population. At this time, the birth control pill is restricted to the elite in the Arab world, and it should not surprise you that in cities like Tunis, Beirut, Istanbul, London, and Milano you can find many daughters of rulers from the middle east fucking their nights away with the local men. This completely ignores the issue that courtesy of the world council of women and Hillary Clinton, feminism is being TRAINED around the world to weaken Americans foes internally, along with pressuring governments to increase access to birth control and abortion in the periphery.
Many in this area of internet assume that the cultural changes experienced in the west are self-restricting, they are not, just look at India and Brazil.
The culture of the future around the world will be the capital-consumption keeping up with the kardashian kind, if you can call it culture. Young women throw away all tradition for some reason, you can probably guess why.
Fortunately the issue is self correcting as urban youth on birth control don’t reproduce. Even in the bidonvilles of Paris Algerian women only have a 0.5 higher birthrate after a single generation than urban Parisian women do. The birthrate is still the highest in Brittany, Aquitaine, and the Massís Centrau.
There has been an important personal development and I am embarking on a bit of a journey, it could be a week or more before I see your response.
I think the shift will be toward China and then the middle east.
As it stands there are so many internal conflicts, men vs women, rich vs poor, racism, various classes, moral vs hedonism, religious which is a great way to decrease the population – get everyone to kill each other etc….
Just a IMHO….
ybm: “Fortunately the issue is self correcting as urban youth on birth control don’t reproduce. Even in the bidonvilles of Paris Algerian women only have a 0.5 higher birthrate after a single generation than urban Parisian women do. The birthrate is still the highest in Brittany, Aquitaine, and the Massís Centrau.”
In Sweden second generation immigrant women even have a slightly lower birthrate than ethnic Swedish women.
@lavazza and ybm.
There is a demographic collapse occuring in almost every country that relies on tribal identity — Spengler documents this quite nicely. The Turks and Persians are fully aware of this — they will not have enough men for a big army in a few years because the birth rate is collapsing and this will lead to demographic collapse.
The only people who are having kids are the religious. Not the Churchians, the hard core believers. The Ur-muslims, the Orthodox Jews, the Mennonites and Traditional Catholics.
Those people keep the old rules (and shame those who do not) for religious and communty reasons. If you want to go and party, you are cast out.
Now, America has two choices. Repent, or dissolve. And this has to start within the evangelical churches, who have become apostate within the last 20-30 years.
” the patriarchy is older women’s rule, while the matriarchy is younger women’s rule.” (imnobody)
Thanks from me also on the clear elaboration you gave. I get what you’re saying, but I see it slightly differently.
The crucial distinction I believe you’re missing is that in the former instance (patriarchy) the older women of relevance are almost all related to the younger women, and therefore have something of her best interests in mind.
In the second case (matriarchy) it is unrelated older women who are (still) ruling the younger women. We’d call them feminists, and this would include everyone giving young women advice and instruction, all of which now mainly amounts to totally screwing them up with half-truths and BS when it comes to men, sex, love, relationships, kids, “work-life balance”, etc.
Human females get more out of their males than any other animal on the planet, and the only way (unrelated) older women can now compete for their slice against the natural advantages younger women have is by knee-capping them Tonya Harding style. Feminism preys on younger women’s more or less innate tendency to trust older women, which is maladaptive in an environment full of unrelated female competitors, something which was largely unknown in human experience before approximately the dawn of agriculture and the development of social aggregations larger than the tribe and clan, i.e., villages and beyond.
So I’d put it this way instead: the patriarchy is older related women’s rule, while the matriarchy is older unrelated women’s rule.
Of course this is quite a different kind of matriarchy (2.0?) than one sees in primitive cultures, where the women are all related.
Older biz…
@Lad
– “theprivateman has a fantastic recommendation” (approx the same as #4 on farm boy’s list)
Game for Girls. Can’t be against that. Instead we have Game for Guys. Just like we have Promise Keepers (for men only) even though it’s women who are the promise-oblivious ones, are filing for all the divorces, etc.
– “Dalrock’s recommendation of controlling the venue”… “In other words because alpha is relative to a particular setting, think of the kind of guy you find attractive and what setting he’ll be most attractive, and go find him there.”
I thought this simple strategy is what they were already doing. Helen Gurley Brown went through seventeen jobs in as many years looking for prey until she found the One. It used to be common for women to quit their jobs for the sole reason that there weren’t any available men there. No man would do this.
One of the big undiscussed reasons why women don’t go into STEM fields is because they think of the men there (nerds, geeks, dweebs, etc like they see on TV) and go eewwww! This has been demonstrated in some psych lab tests, where “priming” young women with pictures or stories of love, romance, weddings and/or family scenarios which they can place themselves into mentally causes them to be less interested in a career in a STEM field.
@David Collard – “the secret for such men to make themselves attractive to women is simple. They should treat women as inferiors.”
Greyghost answered: “When women are feral they only see 20 percent of the men period. And that 20 percent is not the best we have to offer as a society.”
I think he’s more or less correct, the point being that when you’re invisible because of women’s blinders, a man in the other 80% is not interacting with them beyond the superficial level, where it would be rude/pointless to treat, say, the waitress or salesclerk as you suggest even if it were most manifestly true (as long as she’s doing her job it doesn’t matter). IOW, there’s a subtle difference between “regarding” and “treating”: opportunity.
@S. Chan – “…wouldn’t get any blow-jobs”
This is only effective if the guy is getting blow-jobs which can be withdrawn.
If he isn’t, or doesn’t value them, I guess it could be him and his wife pulling a fast one on the policeman, but women don’t tend to think like that or rescue men like that, no matter how many times their singles ads have headlines which proclaim “looking for a partner in crime”.
How can anybody take them seriously?
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/04/powerhouse-planned-parenthood-rally-draws-paltry-crowd/
@Martian Bachelor.
Good point. I completely agree. Having said that, in equality of conditions, feminist message of slutting it up with alphas and being independent is more attractive to young women than to remain chaste, give up all the fun and marry a beta provider. The tingle is powerful.
@ybm
In fact, as you say, Islamic birthrate is dropping, Iran and Algeria have sub-replacement rates. I think that the thesis explained by Erick Hauffman in “Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?” is more accurate. Inside every society (Muslim or Western), there is a subset of high birthrate, religious people. Theirs is the future.
http://www.amazon.com/Shall-Religious-Inherit-Earth-Twenty-First/dp/1846681448
There will be no glorious new civilization replacing the West. Every single country on Earth is getting feminized at some pace. Soon there’ll be no Polands, Brazils, Mexicos, Russias, Philippines where Western men can expat to and escape from feminism, which is turning into a pandemic. imnobody is correct about Algerian and Iranian birthrates. In fact, the majority of the human race is already practising voluntary extinction. The Four Horsemen aren’t stopping.
imnobody,
– Many thanks for your detailed response. You have more than answered my previous questions.
– I am left with new ones though haha. What happens when plummeting birth rates leaves us with a society of many old (most probably unmarried) women?
– Old women might prefer patriarchy but these old women won’t be able to enforce the patriarchy on the young women because of the reasons you listed. But the queen bee cannot survive without the drones. They have to come up with some means of squeezing the males. How will they do so? And even if they succeed in squeezing the males somehow, this generation of men learned to be slackers. Dalrock talks about this in his writings about the “weakening signal.” I don’t believe in apocalyptic scenarios but every economist will tell you the importance of incentives and it certainly seems to me that American society would be very seriously impoverished within a couple of decades.
It is very interesting to read imnobody’s analysis of patriarchy as the elderly women’s rule. I think he is right in this. Men have never ruled. Geoff Dench is a sociologist who has written about this. He thought that patriarchy was mainly a con game mad to force men to be more productive by making men believe that they are the ones who rule. You never get people to work for you effectively by putting them down.
I believe that there are many reasons why women chose to let patriarchy die. On is the pill. I also think that at least WWI had a tremendous impact because this was the ultimate betrayal of the sons by their fathers. I also believe that the cold war hade a role to play. I remember how I every evening feared that the next day the world would stand no more (this lasted up until the mid 1980´s). Insecurity about the future is very conducive for hedonism.
Maybe one of the most important factors to urge women to abandon the form av matriarchy called patriarchy was the exploding world population. As the world population grew it became impossible for women to get as many children as before. This made women’s powerbase much smaller.
When women got more children and grandchildren and so forth a woman could look forward to be the base of quite a lot of people who all owned their existence to her. Her position was strong and indisputable. It was so secure that she could afford to call her husband the head of the family because she knew that she was the most important.
But now a woman might only get one or to children, and she will never know if they get children – and maybe they will move far away. So the power and status that can be derived in motherhood has diminished tremedously.
The women thought that they could abandon this and instead pursue the power that normally was in men’s domain, that is power in the public realm. However, I think that women are in for a nasty ride. They will learn that whereas the power they got as mothers and the base of family was something that could not be disputed, they will be in for a rough fight to hold onto power positions in the public sphere, as these positions are much more unstable.
And as feminism has worked by undermining authority women are now going to take over positions that are much more unstable and precarious than they used to be. In addition feminism has disenfranchised men, who do not expect to get much out of society and are unwilling to cooperate. It is realized by very many men that a lot of women (certainly not all) are exploiting men and today women are distrusted in a way that they have never been before.
This force women to be more independent and they might celebrate this as a victory, but deep down in their guts they know it is a defeat. What independence mean is that when a woman could depend on four hands to support her and her children, she can now only depend on two hands – her own with some support from welfare state which will diminish as the input of men will diminish thanks to what Rosin calls ”the end of men”.
Nas,
The US is already bankrupt and effectively operating in chapter 11.
I offer no insight on timing, however. A smart dude once observed that the markets can stay wrong, longer than you can remain solvent.
Lots of restless young men sounds like a recipe for civil strike. Either that, or a war of sorts.
Höllenhund,
Feminism only works in rich countries, which have the wealth and the power to enforce feminist laws.
Poorer countries may have feminist laws on the books but find it impractical to enforce them.
an observer: I read that some historian had found data that all major conflicts have been preceded by an excess of young uncommitted men, but I can’t remember for which countries and conflicts this was found.
Has anyone inquired about the well being of our host?
@empathologism
No, but as you say it. He has been silent for a little too long. It is not comfortable.
Can’t we let the man take some time off? He last commented:
Dalrock says:
August 28, 2012 at 9:42 am
Maybe he’s been hard at work? Putting the blog on the back burner for the meantime. Perhaps he was whisked away by the ‘hate police’ at 3 in the morning? Spending his time in a cell and being taken to retraining camp for his daily brainwashing session.
Could also be that he’s just tired and enjoying some time with family and friends.
I remember a fellow on here (Samuel) who said he recently finished a book and passed it along to Dalrock. Could just be reading it and/or providing insight.
Im not trying to not let him have a rest, nor am I clamoring for new food in the trough, he normally says he will be busy….etc etc…..and now, nada.
For what its worth, I disappeared recently (not that it would be noticed) for a couple weeks and didn’t think even for a second about my blog or any other, and my reason was very bad news, so, I was wondering.
In any case, I hope its all good….vacation or whatever.
Deti,
If you are still reading, here is my post regarding your comments about a woman respecting her husband. I didn’t get to work on it until much later than I had hoped.
@KristianKP
When women got more children and grandchildren and so forth a woman could look forward to be the base of quite a lot of people who all owned their existence to her. Her position was strong and indisputable. It was so secure that she could afford to call her husband the head of the family because she knew that she was the most important.
This reminds me of the exchange between the main character and her mother in My Big Fat Greek Wedding:
Toula Portokalos: Ma, Dad is so stubborn. What he says goes. “Ah, the man is the head of the house!”
Maria Portokalos: Let me tell you something, Toula. The man is the head, but the woman is the neck. And she can turn the head any way she wants.
I’m struck by people who have a compulsive need to believe that men didn’t actually have more power in the past. All I have to do is look at my own parents and grandparents to see what a load of BS that is. Some of you people, particularly some of the Protestants, don’t know what it is for women to be traditional minded and non-feminist. You literally have no experience of it, so you concoct these crazy ideas about the world always being covertly under women’s control. There would be no feminism, no extremism, and no compulsive need to deny that the past was ever significantly different, if it weren’t for the fact that family men did indeed have far more rights and power than they have now.
Joe S……you conflate power and rights, hence your assertion is nonsense
Men have responsibilities, women have only being made to orgasm hard… thank you, left/liberals and feminists (enjoy the collapse of civilization).
Nowhere else on earth to women hate their own men with every fibre of their being than the anglosphere. Does it not bring you shame to HATE your brothers? To watch in glee when they suffer? To deny them any agency at all? Does the perception of past oppression colour your worldview to such a degree that to maim, imprison, humiliate, even MURDER your own men is an enjoyable experience to you? How are anglo women not ashamed of themselves for this? It is shocking to behold, and you really must be from outside of the anglosphere to understand it.
Feminism has spread to every corner of the world, now even the Ummah, yet nowhere does this raw, belligerent HATRED of men exist but in the English speaking world. Even the most fucked-up of all European feminists, Simone De Beauvoir waxed about her mes chers in Sartre and wrote him poetry. Compare that to Betty Friedan, who delighted in claiming her ex-husband was an abuser with Dolores Alexander conspiring with her to make false claims against him.
Anglo women know no shame, no regret, no disgrace. They are a useless cancer upon the earth and I attribute the patience of Job, the temperance of Cato and the humility of St.Francis to Anglo men for accepting this beaviour. Truly Anglo men are an evolved species compared to their women, comparable to the difference between a human and a blue-green ooze collecting at the base of a sewage draining pipe.
ybm,
Maybe these women hate these men precisely because of the reasons you listed. NOWHERE else on earth are men so completely devoid of self respect; so pussy whipped, so groveling, so pathetic! How can anyone not feel contempt for such creatures?
You are wasting your breath trying to point these out to them though. You see bro they are alpha bro. They get a lot of pussy bro. And these bros are so utterly convinced that they are superior and special that they think the misandry they help perpetuate won’t ever touch them.
You ask (probably with great despair and sadness): “Does the perception of past oppression colour your worldview to such a degree that to maim, imprison, humiliate, even MURDER your own men is an enjoyable experience to you?” Hahahaha come on man when you hear US generals talk about how waging war on Afghans is “fun” because “these people beat their women around”, you begin to realize just how degenerate these people are.
You are far too forgiving of these men and instead express your anger towards the women. I have nothing but contempt for these men.
@JoeS
This is not a compulsive need but an accurate analysis of patriarchy. Men were the kings but it was the women who handed over the kingdom to the king and therefore men could only be kings on the premises sett by women. It was men who were the daily leaders but it was women who decided in which direction men should lead.
I think mojohn illustrate it quite well with his citation.
Patriarchy was a con game meant to make men believe they were important and thereby increase our production.
But I think that today it has become quite visible to men that we are not very important in the eyes of women – although they now underestimate our importance severely.
Nas says:
September 5, 2012 at 3:03 pm
I teach an introductory finance course at the local university here in town, and it has given me a deep insight into what you describe (I am currently living in the anglosphere). I see in the so-called “20%” of young men the very character you describe, bitter, jingoistic, vile, deliberately evil. It should not shock you these are the young men fucking our commentators daughters with vigour, much to her delight.
In the other 80% I see lost boys, men in all but name, and men in any other nation or people, indeed they would be the best men back home. They are polite, decent, young men who are on time, inquisitive, sons that would fill his ancestors with pride from heaven. I see these boys abused, mocked, ignored, by the women all around them, even my female coworkers (ewww that creepy guy in my lecture!!!).
I see the deliberate EVIL that exists in the hearts of ALL anglo women, but only a subset of anglo men. They look at me as “That hot Italian professor” not as an educator of eager minds, because theirs are not eager minds, only eager vaginas. I can only weep that many of these young men will commit suicide or never know the warm embrace of a decent woman, because only the whore of babylon is spreading her legs in this culture. I wish I could rescue them from the waking nightmare they have been born into.
Re: marlon at 6:24 am
I’m familiar with that argument and I don’t think it’s groundless. It’s true that full-blown Western feminism as we know it is feasible only where women don’t need to get married i.e. the nanny state essentially props them up by diverting resources to them in exchange for…well, them being “empowered”, office-working serial monogamist womyn. However, national borders don’t stop technological progress, which ultimately devalues the social status and economic significance of average betas and strengthens female autonomy. Roosh had a great article a couple of months ago about Brazil, of all places, turning into yet another bastion of feminism with the usual mixture of gynocentric legislation, the collapse of the national fertility rate and the gradual withering of traditional norms. And it’s the same everywhere you look. Feminist politicians are making headway even in the Middle East after the Arab Spring. The global mantra is the empowerment of women, providing women with more opportunities, the education of young girls etc. It’s all about women; men don’t matter at all. The future is scary no matter how we slice it.
You don’t need a sociologist to make the case. Just look at the intersection of feminism and American History, where Abigail Adams’ exhortation to hubbie John is celebrated to this day:
“I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could.”
What is less well remembered is his reply:
“Depend upon it, We know better than to repeal our Masculine systems. Altho they are in full Force, you know they are little more than Theory. We dare not exert our Power in its full Latitude. We are obliged to go fair, and softly, and in Practice you know We are the subjects. We have only the Name of Masters, and rather than give up this, which would compleatly subject Us to the Despotism of the Peticoat, I hope General Washington, and all our brave Heroes would fight. . .”
Well, we’ve repealed those “Masculine systems” — hardly anyone even knows what they were, exactly, they’ve been gone so long. And all you have to do is look at both political party conventions to see it’s now official: this is the Despotism of the Peticoats he warned about. For the first time in American history, both candidates have polygamists not far back up the family tree.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2198428/Half-women-delay-starting-family-dont-want-freedom.html
Fuck, right on cue!
Emotionally infertile might be my favourite new meme.
I’m too emotionally infertile to pay my electricity bill this month.
I’m feeling emotionally infertile to go to work today.
My emotional infertility is a disability and I need to go on social benefits.
YBM, don’t give them any ideas!
The wiki entry on warLavazzLar has some interesting theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wa
I favour the economic cycle explanan. ation, with some sympathy for strauss and howes theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss-Howe_generational_theory
The issue is that whilst the productive efforts of men build society up, the leechlike erosion of feminists, encouraged by government law, erode society from within.
All civilisations/empires grow, mature and decline. I fear we are in a long decline.
I suppose “emotional infertility” will become the politically correct synonym for “frustrated hypergamy”.
Silliness of the day. Make sure you make it to the middle
http://m.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/aug/31/lego-friends-profit-rise?cat=lifeandstyle&type=article
Wow 1061 comments!
excellent.
About due to repeat this process:
“Lady: Says feminist idea I (which has been disproved once and again by science and by the manosphere).
Other people: Says argument A which disproves I (argument that we all know so it doesn’t add anything to the discussion).
Lady: Distorts argument A in order to attack it (strawman fallacy). Repeats idea I
Other people: Point out the distortion of the argument A.
Lady: Ignores argument A. Repeats idea I.
Other people: Present argument B, C, D against idea I.
Lady: Distorts the arguments she can, ignore others and tell that idea I is true in her life because “my husband and I…
Other people: Try to argue logically with lady.
Lady: Does not concede any point, does not agree with any argument she does not want to agree, uses veiled shaming language, etc. Repeats and repeats idea I
At the end of the day, after much back and forth, nothing has been achieved. Idea I is completely disproved in the manosphere. Arguments A, B, C, D are known. The “lady” has not changed her mind but it has managed to get the discussion to become about her and to stop people have the meaningful discussion they would have had if she hasn’t appeared.”
That and the ‘raype’ diversion,the universal topic derailer.
I also wonder were Dalrock is,he’s overdue.
Excellent comments past the 640 mark, I had not attended recently due to the derailers.
Dalrock is talking to Haley on another thread
Good for Lego. That’s a great old toy company I loved as a kid, and I’m glad to see they are still doing well.
I thought this was interesting (i.e. stupid) so I thought I’d hijack Dalrock’s blog–uh I mean share it:
http://deadspin.com/5940735/bu-mens-hockey-team-will-try-to-change-its-culture-of-sexual-entitlement
Humorous relief: Woman Knew Ever Since Age 40 She Didn’t Want Children (video)
@Nas
What happens when plummeting birth rates leaves us with a society of many old (most probably unmarried) women? Old women might prefer patriarchy but these old women won’t be able to enforce the patriarchy on the young women because of the reasons you listed. But the queen bee cannot survive without the drones
Well, this is a development that has not happened yet. We are still early in the matriarchy (which is more advanced in USA). The first feminist generation of women had it all: slut it up during their 20s and then marry a beta provider and have the white picket fence. This is the generation of Susan Walsh, the one who benefited the most from feminism (as SW explains).
Their daughters are now in their 20s and 30s. They saw their mothers and elder sisters having it all and they think they will be the same with them. We will have to watch for the next twenty years to see how things turn out.
My guess? Older women becoming more feminist, more demands of money transfers to them, more politicians giving perks to the older ladies, more articles bashing men, etc. You have to take into account that these older women are not the patriarchal older women of yore. They have bought feminism hook, line and sinker when they were young. Thinking “I was wrong, I screw up my life and I will die alone only because my decisions” is extremely painful and requires more introspection than most American women have. So expect men being blamed for commitment-phobia, selfishness, etc.
In the economic realm, worse and worse economy and Western countries will be poorer and poorer. There will be no civilization collapse à la Mad Max. Having lived for lots of year in a Latin American country, I know that these countries can be stable. Rich and upper middle class people live well and most people live whatever they can. The curious thing is that most people are happy (in fact, they are happier than in America) because they have no high expectations. But I don’t think American people will give up their luxuries with a smile.
This is the destiny that awaits America, but it will take long. It won’t be with a bang but with a whimper. When I was studying University (last 80s, early 90s) a friend of mine told me that she had read a book by a French economist that proved that the future of Europe was becoming more and more like Latin America: a big gulf between poor and rich, weak middle class, public services decreasing, etc. I didn’t believe her then but it’s exactly what has happened. Now, with the European crisis, many things that were unthinkable and that there only characteristic of Latin America are being discussed overtly in the media. Sometimes, I think our masters are not satisfied with controlling us: they want to rule like feudal lords over an impoverished and desperate people and this is why feminism has been favored by the elites.
Partly off topic but Charles Martel wrote these quotes in The Spearhead and I think they are enlightening:
If every man had been concerned to ensure that his own wife looked up to him and respected his rightful position as her husband, we should not have half this trouble with women en masse. Instead, women have become so powerful that our independence has been lost in our own homes and is now being trampled underfoot in public. We have failed to restrain them as individuals, and now they have combined to reduce us to our present panic.”……Cato the Elder, 234 BC – 149 BC
“There began to be fewer men who paid taxes than there were who received wages; so that the means of the husbandmen being exhausted by enormous impositions, the farms were abandoned, cultivated grounds became woodland … And many presidents and a multitude of inferior officers lay heavy on each territory, and almost on each city. There were also many stewards of different degrees, and deputies of presidents. Very few civil causes came before them: but there were condemnations daily, and forfeitures frequently inflicted; taxes on numberless commodities, and those not only often repeated, but perpetual, and, in exacting them, intolerable wrongs.……Lactantius, 315 AD
“Nations innumerable and most savage have invaded all Gaul. The Whole region between the Alps and the Pyrenees, the ocean and the Rhine, has been devastated by the Quadi, the Vandals, the Sarmati, the Alani, the Gepidae, the hostile Heruli, the Saxons, the Burgundians, the Alemanni, and the Pahnonians.
Oh wretched Empire! Mayence [Mainz, Germany], formerly so noble a city, has been taken and ruined, and in the church many thousands of men have been massacred. Worms [Germany] has been destroyed after a long siege. Rheims, that powerful city, Amiens, Arras, Speyer [Germany], Strasburg, – all have seen their citizens led away captive into Germany. Aquitaine and the provinces of Lyons and Narbonne, all save a few towns, have been depopulated; and these the sword threatens without, while hunger ravages within.
I cannot speak without tears of Toulouse, which the merits of the holy Bishop Exuperius have prevailed so far to save from destruction. Spain, even, is in daily terror lest it perish, remembering the invasion of the Cimbri; and whatsoever the other provinces have suffered once, they continue to suffer in their fear.
I will keep silence concerning the rest, lest I seem to despair of the mercy of God. For a long time, from the Black Sea to the Julian Alps, those things which are ours have not been ours; and for thirty years, since the Danube boundary was broken, war has been waged in the very midst of the Roman Empire. Our tears are dried by old age. Except a few old men, all were born in captivity and siege, and do not desire the liberty they never knew.
Who could believe this? How could the whole tale be worthily told? How Rome has fought within her own bosom not for glory, but for preservation – nay, how she has not even fought, but with gold and all her precious things has ransomed her life…
Who could believe that Rome, built upon the conquest of the whole world, would fall to the ground? That the mother herself would become the tomb of her peoples? That all the regions of the East, of Africa and Egypt, once ruled by the queenly city, would be filled with troops of slaves and handmaidens? That to-day holy Bethlehem should shelter men and women of noble birth, who once abounded in wealth and are now beggars?”……St. Jerome, 406 AD
Does somebody know anything about Dalrock? I hope he is well.
[D: Thanks for the concern. I’m fine, just very busy. I should have a new post up in a few days.]
@imnobody I dont know if you saw this but the United States Social Security office just recently purchased 174,000 .357 hollow points :
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48898365/ns/us_news-life/#.UEio-6T-8d4
I think it is going to come fast and furious along with other atrocities.
Great comments, YBM, you’re on fire.
Feminism is like diversity in the elites. They speak about it, talk about it, praise it but don’t practice it in their own daily lives (at least to the fullest extent). Remember all of those self-righteous white guilt liberals who live in upper class white dominated enclaves sewed from minority hordes? Those SWPLs who worship diversity yet their interests involve a lot of white people (their own people) for whichever reason? Who have low rates of interracial marriages? Who don’t see blacks or hispanics in every corner where they are at? These same individuals orgasmed over Barack Hussein Obama becoming President. And now are a bit disillusioned about him but are still blaming those poor religious crazy whites (or white trash) for criticizing their failed dreams and fantasies. These same rich male liberals apparently love, love feminism but live like Mitt Romney and have more than 2 children on average with their wives staying at home (or working part-time) and wish to ward off false rape allegations, sexual harassment suits and other hysteria from their strong female coworkers (read: women who are in debt from college and wasted their time there). Yet greedy 1% Mitt Romney is the only devil. In reality both parties are under the influence of the Bankstas and have mildly discriminatory attitudes in their daily lives. Forget what they say. Look at how they live and what they do. Be honest about one’s discrimination. Don’t hide it.
Imnobody, the boomers are just starting to turn 65, and the tail end is only now making it to 50. Lots will live to 95-100, especially the women. So it will take 20-30 years before all ~60 million of them still left (as of now) will be in their prime years of sucking down care-giving resources like nobody’s business.
On the course this Titanic is on, it will basically come down to either them or all the single OOW baby-mommas (prob. 75+% of births by then). What’s left of male productivity will not be enough to support both needy and deserving groups. It’s gonna largely be The Grannies vs. The Whores With Kids. Both political parties are now trying to align themselves with both sides. The best arms merchants always supply both sides of the war.
As usual, men are pretty much caught in the crossfire. It’s almost stunning to me how the media have kept the horrific disintegration of Chicago (link shows map), of all places, out of the news to the extent they have.
If Obama wanted to exhibit some maybe re-election-worthy leadership wrt to poor people, or blacks, or whoever he community organized there, he could actually earn that paid-forward Nobel Peace Prize sitting on his MANtle by getting his ass in there to put a stop to all the violence. Wasn’t that kinda what (white) people elected him for? Instead of robot mode campaigning, he should make that his only job the next two months. Instead, they’re trying to pretend it’s happening in someplace like Syria.
Women are human beings present in different ethnic groups, shaped and modified by CORPORATIONS through FEMINISM, they have expanded their physical and mental abilities, but losing femininity and their individual will.
Although the concept of enslaved people is not new in human history, women today have distinguished themselves from all their predecessors of both sexes for their collective behavior focused to an extreme psychological aggression toward the male species.
Women’s minds is connected by a collective called FEMINISM. FEMINISM is directed by the CORPORATIONS. CORPORATIONS These seem to be the only one responsible behind the actions of FEMINISM, bending to their will FEMINISM with the excessive use of air conditioning media, which has become a social current planetary tends to empower women with the subjugation of man and his likely subsequent annihilation as a human species, deprived of every right, and enslaved to the welfare of CORPORATIONS.
(1)The purpose of women is, by their own admission, the improvement and refinement of their social status.(1)
(2)Women want to achieve this purpose through rehabilitation male forcibly assimilating their biological and technological distinctiveness to integrate them in their future feminist society.(2)
The male re-education is obtained by the natural attraction that men have toward women, using the powers – psychological, sexual, social, guilt and anything else I forgot to mention – as real weapons.
In no time, force men to obey their selfish needs, depriving them of all, thanks to a series of PRIVILEGES that the biological status of human beings female gives them, as well as helped by the CORPORATIONS that nations have imposed new laws in favor of women.
Women have a very high capacity for adaptation and in fact, when they encounter an obstacle, analyze and develop a countermeasure that normally removes the obstacle, whatever the type of problem encountered.
Typically, women do not come into the world as being selfish and misandrici, however, since the more ‘young age, they are indoctrinated by CORPORATIONS through the media and the FEMINISM, which instructs them how to survive at the expense of the male human race, using some of these methods, we can categorize the today’s men as follow:
:::::::: Men doormat :: (BETA Class)
When women argue with a guy and / or a man of weak character, the “capture” him with feminine seduction and women thus begin the process of Education, he is subjected to a series of psychological violence in which it undergoes a process for him to become a doormat, many comparisons are carried out both historical and contemporary, entirely devoid of feedback in most cases, and it starts so the male RE-EDUCATION necessary for full integration of the new verb feminist.
This process is so effective that he feels like the real culprit of the alleged sopprusi carried out by men in history to the detriment of all women! even if at the material time, he was not born yet!
The doormat man, finally, get the FEMMINISM concept as is own, and often deny himself and disgusted and / or all of the male gender.
At the end of this process, the doormat man becomes a full member of the FEMMINISM collective mind. Often the Doormat man canceled their identity and value in the society as a male, and he will serve FEMMINIM mind until the day he will die.
I :::::::: the “Tughs” (Alpha class)
These “men” are a special kind of men who, after undergoing the above, the definition of “doormat” by dint of display behavior lacking morality and good sense for the sole pleasure women, often brought to completion by the use of physical strength, becomes first bully and then in the final form of “tughs”, those who implements behavior lacking wisdom, spirit, made through the display and / or personality focused on athleticism, they are often of no Buff instead, some but they are not implementing the same behavior, both types can be recognized by the low cultural level of social exclusion and lack of civic education.
::::::: the wo-men (was once Men) (Beta class)
Another by-product of femminist social rehabilitation, the wo-men assumes attitudes and behaviors similar to females, which expresses in a clear through the excessive use of cosmetics, beauty salons frequencies, meticulous care of your body, hair removal and total enormous interest for fashion and trends more ‘popular, often these behaviors are so ingrained that he loses all interest in the relationship with the females, allowing himself from time to time the same way as women.
The optimistic man in love ::::::: (BETA Class)
This category includes men from certain social blindness, despite the adverse social conditions for men, despite the marriage 2.0, they still believe to be lucky in love and to find a decent woman to marry; They endeavor may recall the romantic side inoculated by FEMMINISM, it literally throw themselves into the arms of a relationship with the only certainty that “Divorce? it will not happen to me since we are really in love!!. ” Often in this category reside separated fathers, the friend who looks at you suspiciously when you put them on guard about marriage and the divorce, or the category of people who do not know women
:::::::: The men who DO NOT know women (BETA Class)
You can recognize them at a glimph of an eye, they blindly trust their women..and women does not hesitate in reassuring in this respect, knowing the methods to be implemented, and it is often used to say: “I am quiet different from the others”..or NAWALT.. this leads to the ‘oblivious to give and get turn inside out, while everyone knows of this situation, he does not perceive it from the inside, do not realize that in the beginning, the women will see and showeverythings as all would be painted in pink and flowers all around, kindness, sweet, caring, but only due they have a series of goals to be achieved over time.. in fact, the behavior of the man who does not know the women is such as to take over boredom, and since women, unlike men, have options EVERYWHERE (a.k.a. alpha men), when boredom takes over, she begins to look around, to find “new emotions”, while he will be sure that she still loves and respects him, he is quiet, does not suspect anything, this is the typical attitude of the men who does not know the women: good manners, available, romantic, good-natured , submissive.. ok you catch the meaning.. Subsequently, the female invents useless quarrels and spring on the fly for someone who might instead .. Knows women well .. so they have sex and then she goes to cry crocodile tears everywhere for comfort, often returns to the victim, her face swollen with tears, looking for understanding, often granted by those beta men..
Although all of the above have become supporters of the Femminims, and every trace of individuality as men was deeply suppressed, sometimes this men tend to gradually recover their memories if external circumstances cause serious harm to their lives, or if they try the red pill, in certain cases, for example, divorce often leads to the rejection of the Femminism.
This men, are in fact, a failure of Femminist rehabilitation, we can list them as follows:
::::::: Men who KNOW women (Alpha class – coming from those who don’t know women)
Thanks to a healthy upbringing guided by values at a high personal culture combined with a steely ego and critics, these types of men are the real enemy of Femminism, they argue and removed any questionable argument from the femminism matrix with results such as hope for a future balance between men and women. they used to had relationships with women, but only thanks to their integral male personality, they have managed to escape from the marriage 2.0 trap, enjoy freedom and being single, despite this means they lost a lot in the divorce, they tend to help other men to stay away from the marriage trap and avoid some kind of women, they are true heroes.
:::::::::: The Bastards (Alpha Class- coming from the thugs)
Idolized and hated, the Femminist are always been actracted by the bastards, the bastards usually have these skills from birth, evolved from the days of school due to bullying supported by the young slutty femminism grlllll who saw in them the “real men”!, provided they have completed a rejection of the femminism doctrine, they normally are selfish or have become such due to a series of favorable situations, which may be divorce, or just the beauty, an ego brazen or maybe a communion of all these characteristics, have a lot of experience with females, usually have an uncommon emotional control towards women (who use this emotions to control betas relationships) in order to have always full control of his time and for the pump and dump process. They represent real MINE on the Femminism path, but they are totally useless for an effective contribution to other men since their selfishness put them apart from male solidarity.
:::::::::: The successful men (Alpha Class)
Though widely areas, these types of men are rare, before them, any female becomes exactly what all men want and never will have, any hesitation sexual, legal, emotional disappears to make room for immediate sexual availability. However, they are also often victims of the femminism power, not surprisingly they are more and more frequent users of “prenuptial agreements” than any other men (Betas) could not “even” speak about it with his woman. However.. women are happy to accepted to sign this rather than a life with a beta doormat, they well know are going to marry “the goose that lays the golden eggs”
:::::::::::::: Femminist Ethics and women “religion” beliefs:::::
(2)The ultimate goal of women is to reach perfection. To achieve this they want to reeducate entire cultures and civilizations to acquire biological and technological distinctiveness deemed desirable, all this and ‘provided to them by using the CORPORATIONS and the media who use the Femminism soaked in and supported by the laws that has taken root in many states exponentially, to the detriment the males.
The FEMMINISM sees himself as engaged in a work of redemption imperfection of the previous civilization patriarchal, therefore requires rehabilitation masculine FEMINISM, bringing them “closer to perfection. ”
It is interesting to note that perfection has become the Femminism social religion.. and how it has become relevant as to be “Divine”, and how they then see the female body as DIVINE (hence woman = good, man = bad), from this, they laid the foundations for the women revenge in all fields, asking for future laws in favor of women only, shrieking the familiar concepts of as “always being submissive to men”, weak and helpless against men, incapable of violence, dominated by the patriarchal state, these preconceptions, without artifice objective value, dominate many western and european societies for nearly 50 years.
The aspiration to perfection is the dominant application in the life of the Femminism Collective, which are subject to the lives not only of those described above, but of ordinary men and women, those who are here referred to as “Beta”.
In conclusion, we can say that, today, femminismit can be reasumed as follow:
“WE ARE WOMEN, THE MEN AS YOU USED TO KNOW WILL BE BANISHED, YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED TO FEMMINIST, YOUR FEATURES’ BIOLOGICAL AND TECHNOLOGY WILL BE OURS. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE” (2)
____________________
(1) This sentence, as well as most of the above, it is relevant to the description that is made of Nazism, commented and explained on WIKIPEDIA.
(2) This sentence, as well as most of the above, it is relevant to the description that is made of Borg (voice: star trek), commented and explained on WIKIPEDIA.
“RESISTANCE IS FUTILE”
I would love to see feminists carrying around a sign like that. Might as well be honest!
Pingback: The Chief Cornerstone of Marriage 2.0: Foolish Sacrifice | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: Biblical vs Churchian Sex in Marriage (and why Christians need game) | Dalrock
Pingback: Christian denial and institutional resistance to change. | Dalrock
Pingback: Connecting the pathological fear of husbands having power with the peter pan manboy syndrome. | Dalrock
Pingback: Catching Up « Manosphere Links
“”And if a wife tackles her husband to try to force him to talk to her, she should be charged with a crime””
I see that you have been sniffing glue?…….Let’s assume that the wife “tackles” the husband…and the husband phones the police….when the moron cops arrive who do they arrest?….THE MAN!….get your head out of your ass!!!!
@Greenlander
“”Has anyone considered that DH not just has a hamster, but *is* a hamster?””
Sure have…..my analogy is….”the wheel is spinning….but the hamster is dead”
@greatbooks
check out on how the fiat masters re-engineered women via feminism–the feminism jonah goldberg exalts lzozllzlz!!
http://www.savethemales.ca/001904.html
Glad you brought up this website….I have been reading it for years….Dr.Makow is a former Prof. of mine from my university years…..a great guy…and a great prof….also,check out his books….they are great!
@StunnedHarlot
“”Wow, you guys are really making marriage look SUPER attractive.””
………..and marriage is attractive in what way?……..losing half of all assets(acquired pre-marriage)….pussymony payments…..legal bills?…..child support payments…..lien on future earnings?……Once again,…”GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS”
@namae nanka
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.
83% of women with money in North America….got it through widowing or divorcing!……aka…”Femi-Nazi entrepreneurship”…..what a joke!
“”Most women divorce to punish their husbands. They usually don’t realize how much it hurts their bottom line until it’s done. Nothing pisses off a women as much as her ex-husband doing well and worse getting a new hotter wife or GF.””
You know it bro!……..99% of divorced women that I know are alot worse off after the divorce…..Go figure!…………and you are correct about the “New Hottie GF”…..revenge is a dish best served cold!……especially if they are 10 years younger!…….Lmao!
Spot on!
Although I would not consider my man a beta, to me he is an alpha because I have no respect for those men who are traditionally considered “alpha’s” in our society. 🙂
Pingback: Lowering the boom. | Dalrock
Pingback: BD #4 – Coronating Her Personal Jesus | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: Commentary on Christians on Marriage « Thinking 8
Pingback: Lovestruck | Dalrock
Pingback: Grab-Bag | Mitchell Powell's Blog
Pingback: Mohler Reviews Men On Strike | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: A Woman Wants A King, Not A Peasant | The Society of Phineas
Lord have mercy…Dalrock, this topic alone with the more than 1,000 replies, is worth a short book. This thread provides Chapters on submission in marriage, the roles of men and women in marriage, the duties of husband and wife, the Churchian heresies on marriage, and the demonstrated solopsisism of female postings in the manosphere. 3:00 a.m. and I could not stop reading.
Plus we identified the central motivation for women- perhaps the achievement of the ages in figuring out what women really want and expressing it in just 3 words:
Tingle Uber Alles
Pingback: Xenophon’s “The Economist” Holds Valuable Lessons On A Woman’s Education
Pingback: All roads lead to Duluth. | Dalrock
Pingback: What does the LC-MS document “When Homes are Heartless” Mean? (part 8 of 10) | theology like a child