If you’ve ever looked at pictures of ancient coins you may have noticed that they are typically not very round. One method of debasing ancient coins was to shave off bits around the edges, a practice called clipping. The debaser could then collect up the gold or silver shaved off of multiple coins while passing the clipped coins off at face value. The practice was of course highly illegal, but the problem was as a merchant it was difficult to draw the line on when you would and wouldn’t accept a coin at face value. If only 1% or 2% of the metal was gone you knew you didn’t have much to worry about. But as the money circulated longer each incremental bit of clipping started to add up. Once the original line was crossed it was difficult to know where to refuse a coin. So long as you could pass it off on someone else you were fine, but you didn’t want to be the final sucker in the chain who foolishly accepted the debased coin at face value.
One of the steps taken to prevent this kind of debasement was to mill the edges of coins. This way it was more obvious when even a little bit had been clipped off. This is why US quarters have milled edges; quarters used to be 90% silver, so there was some incentive to clip. When the government switched to copper-nickel clad quarters they kept the milling as part of the design:
Men looking to marry face the same kind of dilemma ancient merchants used to face. Feminists and their enablers have slowly shaved off the value of marriage for men. Marriage for men no longer means:
- Being the legally and socially recognized head of the household.
- An expectation of regular sex.
- Legal rights to children.
- Lifetime commitment.
As each new bit has been shaved away, men have had the choice of either accepting debased marriage at face value or walking away:
As men came to accept each clip, additional clips were continuously made. Women chose to marry later in order to first have a degree. This older bride then came with a little extra attitude, maybe some student loan debts, and perhaps more expensive tastes. Again, the choice by men was to accept what was commonly on offer or avoid the transaction altogether. After all, this is what everyone else was accepting:
Ok, it isn’t quite as good as the last round, but what are you going to do? In the end if you don’t look too carefully it kind of looks like the same thing. But of course the clipping hasn’t stopped there. That wife who waited to marry until she graduated college really needs to get a career before marriage so she can complete her feminist merit badge. This even older and less attractive career gal wife of course comes with even more feminist attitude, and somehow still comes with student loan debt. She also now has a legal incentive to divorce in the form of cash and prizes and nearly guaranteed child custody. Oh, and we also have some new laws which assume you are an abuser if your wife decides she needs some drama or extra leverage against you. But what are you going to do? Aren’t you man enough to accept her?
There’s just one more small thing. It took her so long to find you that you can’t reasonably expect her chastity to be perfectly in tact. I mean, it’s mostly there, but it suffered a ding or two. Her virginity was gone to her first boyfriend, but don’t worry it was very romantic and she still has fond memories of that special time. Not too long after that those jerks at the frat house did a number on her pride, but you can’t hold that against her. She’s a bright gal, and after that she learned how to hook up smart. There were, I think, a few other clips along the way. Nothing too serious, but after all remember it did take her forever to find you. Your little bird may not be quite as young and innocent as she would have been had she found you sooner, but there is always hope.
You may now kiss the bride.
Lydia Kings image licensed as Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported by Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. Heads view of quarter and Virgin Islands quarter images are from the United States Mint.
nice post dalrock!
as i’ve always said, today’s women are desouled in secretive tapigs of butthext sessions and converted into vehicles of wealth transfer so as to convert fiat debt and a law degree into physical property and wealth, tranferring from menz to da statez zlozlzozo.
women are taught to serve the corporate state bottom line (lzolzoz bottomz lzozolz) instead of the higher ideals of the judeo christian heritage zlzolzzol
[D: Thanks GBFM. I thought you might enjoy this one.]
yes dalrock inflation:
once upon a time money a decent salalry bought you a loyal wife and home and kidz.
today all a billion fiat bernanke dollars will buy you is a billion fiat berannkified chcicks who have been desouled and tuaght and programmed to bitch moan compaliian and persuecutue their husnabds and spy on them and tranfer their assets to da statez and to the divorce anti-god regimez lzlzooz
thankz dalrock, but i must admit aritiophanes aristophanes beat us too it in the frogz lzozozooz as id copernicus: aristophanes wrote long ago:
You know what I often think:
We treat our best men
The way we treat our mint
The silver and the golden
We were proud to invent
These unalloyed
Genuine coins, no less,
Ringing true and tested
Both abroad and [in] Greece
And now they’re not employed
As if we were disgusted
And want to use instead
These shoddy coppers minted
Only yesterday
Or the day before
(as if that matters).
(Aristophanes: The Complete Plays, trans. Paul Roche, New American Library, 2005, p. 573)
http://mises.org/daily/3885
“It used to be that every economist worth his salt knew Gresham’s Law (or, if he was Polish, Copernicus’s Law): “bad money drives out good.” Narrowly understood, this rule says that when the government requires people to accept different forms of money at an exchange rate fixed by law, the form of money that is overvalued (the “bad money”) will circulate, while the form of money that is undervalued (the “good money”) won’t.
Now comes a new translation of the plays of Aristophanes by Paul Roche, among them “The Frogs,” which has the oldest known expression of this rule.”
There is a law to describe this, “Gresham’s Law”. That is, the bad drives out the good. Seems to be happening with marriage.
Here is a link
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law
Once the original line was crossed it was difficult to know where to refuse a coin. So long as you could pass it off on someone else you were fine
Translation: The safest way to deal with adulterated money, and women, is not to hold on to either for very long.
but you didn’t want to be the final sucker in the chain who foolishly accepted the debased coin at face value.
Translation: However, there comes a point when “the only winning move is not to play.”
GB4FM returns in form as if he never left.
Reminds me of a quote from Lie to Me:
Dr. Cal Lightman: The bride is pretending to be a virgin, the groom is pretending to have found The One, and the inlaws are pretending to like each other. It’s Christmas for liars.
ar10308 writes: “GB4FM returns in form as if he never left.”
I am with you, always.
lozozlzolzlzo
Wonderful clarity. Simple, straightforward, irrefutable. When you publish a post like this, there’s nothing left to add.
Dalrock, knock out post.
Honest without condescension.
Simple, but catches all the subtle parts.
Direct, yet no vitriol.
Implies the depth of ways men can respond to this situation, but doesn’t get caught up in those tangents, leaving room for further discussion.
Coin clipping, what a really great analogy. Not all coins are clipped to the same degree, but where does one draw the line.
Really good job.
[D: Thank you.]
Good post. Now, if I may, a question or two…
1) What was the penalty under Roman law for a) clipping a coin b) trying to pass a clipped coin off on someone else.
2) If someone passes debased currency in a transaction, is the transaction actually legally binding? Or, if you pay for something with “Bernakified fiat dollars” (no doubt earned through secretly taped desoulifying butthex), do you really have any legal claim on what you “purchased”?
In regards to my question above, see the case of the unfortunate Thomas and Anne Rogers who were caught clipping coins by the British in 1690… it seems the crown desired to make an especially strong example of them.
If it was the Yankee dollar being clipped, the church should care: the secular contract is of some concern to us all. But it is the temple shekel that is being clipped. There is no respect of the marriage bed.
Went to church today — the lectionary was read (correctly) but the pastor glossed over the teaching on divorce. We need to keep our own judgements here and shun those who spurn the marital bed.– or accept that the church is no longer Christ’s but another form of Kiwanis.
Since coin clipping was so prevalent in earlier times and since most early coins were not in any way uniform in size, if you wanted to make a fair trade any coins used were weighed instead of just counted.
Changing the purity of a coin is something much harder to do than mere clipping. A coin clipper didn’t go to the trouble of melting, adulterating and then remaking any coins. Therefore you could put more faith in the percentage of precious metals in a coin than in its weight.
So passing a clipped coin was not big deal. Just weigh the coins in the transaction and problem solved, no fraud involved.
Dalrock’s analogy is still a good one though.
By debasing the dollar, the FED transfers wealth from you to them. By debasing your “wife,” they accomplish the same task.
Coin clipping also involved the removal of the content of worth, the gold or silver, by debasement. The precious metal content was substituted by ordinary metals.
The coins looked similar, but lost purchasing power with each iteration. This allowed the issuer to put out more currency, that eroded the power of all the existing currency on issue. Once begun, the process continues to its inevitable conclusion.
As the volume grew, each unit of currency progressively bought less.
Eventually the currency becomescompletely debased, and is replaced. Happens to all fiat currencies, with no exceptions.
Marriage may go the same way. Complete debasement before being replaced. Possibly by another flawed arrangement.
The analogy is extremely valid. As point out:
“Marriage for men no longer means:
Being the legally and socially recognized head of the household.
An expectation of regular sex.
Legal rights to children.
Lifetime commitment.”
What one is left with is “marriage light” of which has no value or “weight / substance” and hence useless if not toxic to society.
Reminds me of Daniel 5 “[Tekel] means ‘weighed’–you have been weighed on the balances and have not measured up (NLT translation).”
Kudos – excellent post !!
Shalom
Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You – Octoberish | Society of Amateur Gentlemen
“You may now kiss the bride.”
I think that I can safely reply for my MGTOW bretheren as well as myself, that the bride and her feminist sisterhood can KISS MY A**!
And all the good Churchians will leap up up to applaud wildly for her in her white wedding dress as the sucker…er…”husband” kisses the slut….er…”bride”. He gets applause that day, too, because he obeyed the call of “ManUP”.
None of these people will be around 3 to 5 years later when she divorces him for ca$h and prizes…
Another absolutely brilliant post Dalrock. Going to link it into an upcoming Best of the Manosphere.
Okrahead, you may find this article interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_Act_1415
Dalrock
So long as you could pass it off on someone else you were fine, but you didn’t want to be the final sucker in the chain who foolishly accepted the debased coin at face value.
In the modern marketplace this is known as the “greater fool” theory of trading. An older term is the “musical chairs” trade – when the music stops, be sure you have some place to sit down…
Amazing post. And clearly laying out the lack of incentives for the modern day man to marry. I am 38, MBA from top 5 university, 6 ft, fit, full head of hair, and financially independent. In other words, I am someone most women would consider a “catch”. And I choose to opt out. It’s disappointing, but I would rather know the truth and live MGTOW than marrying up some single mom while raising her alpha offspring.
@Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen – allow me to make a man to man suggestion (From a real ghetto kid, raised in the projects in Detroit, MI during the race riots consisting of domestic violence/alcoholism/gambling, single mom on welfare/food stamps etc).
Try writing and spelling something that is readable and therefore understandable.
Despite what you might think – what / how you write is completely and utterly confusing and unreadable. It is a waste of space and time.
Shalom
A+
@Dalrock – Excellent analogy. Marriage today has been completely debased – it’s similar in name only to the marriage spoken of in the Bible. It’s now a contract that offers a man nothing but risk. Time to stop accepting that currency.
@Michael Singer – I used to think the same thing, and I am a real stickler for grammar, but trust me and make the effort with GBFMs comments, there’s gold buried in those hills.
Great post. I enjoyed the analogy.
A good analogy. To extend it a bit further, it is clear what happens when a currency is overly debased. People have to use it because it is the only thing available, but over time, people will begin to make alternate arrangements for payment — the rise of the black market, that avoids trading in the official currency of the regime.
That is what we’re beginning to see. A relationship black market of sorts. The rise of cohabitation, the hook-up culture, PUA’s, normalization of homosex,, MGTOW, etc., are all signs of a rising black market in relationships — people seeking alternatives to the legitimate currency of marriage. When black markets emerge, governments use their power to try to force compliance (imprisonment for child support being one example), or they try to co-opt the alternate arrangements (push for gay marriage) but it is not sustainable. Eventually the thing has to go full circle and an entirely new currency is issued that has the exact features of the old currency before it was debased. So the traditional form of marriage and family organization will return, it is only a matter of time and how many people are hurt in the process.
Thank you, been trying to make this point to many young men taking their first steps into the world of mating and dating. This does a much better job so I’ll just start linking them here instead.
All relationships are based on mutual reciprocity, a social contract, and few have changed so much as those between men and women. If one part decides to deliver less, while often demanding more, it’s only natural for the other to adjust their investment accordingly.
It never ceases to amaze how often females who openly state they have no desire to fill the role of mother or wife still expect men to treat them as they would.
@Micheal Singer
This might your first contact with GBFM. Everything, including the misspelling, is part of the whole GBFM schtick. He’s quite a regular on Heartiste. He actually has coffee cups and t-shirts. He’s kind of famous. I sometimes wonder if he has groupies and gets laid, if the women say “Benerkify me, big boy”. The misspelling is part of the message and often is the message. At first reading you think “What an idiot” and maybe for the first maybe 10 times you encounter him you think the same thing. Then you start to “get him”.
He might be one of smartest commenters around. I have no idea. But its all part of the delivery. Sometimes I think he is Roissy using another voice. Hang in there, he’ll start to grow on you. I kind of like him now. He’s the comic relief commenter in a sea of serious people trying to get their opinion out there.
There is a piece from “Through the Looking-Glass”. At the top of the hill, the Red Queen begins to run, faster and faster. Alice runs after the Red Queen, but is further perplexed to find that neither one seems to be moving. When they stop running, they are in exactly the same place. Alice remarks on this, to which the Red Queen responds: “Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place”.
There has recently in many Red Pill blogs about the things that men are not doing in marriage and all these things they should do, how to use game and positive masculinity.
When I take it all into to consideration, how you start to prepare as a boy, to study to gain entrance to university, to study there to graduate to get the better job, to apply your nose to the grindstone in modern corporate life to make more money to even be considered by women to be picked by her. And then after marriage, all that you must do, success at work to maintain income and to grow it to keep up with your wife’s ever increasing demands, to use Game yet struggle to be a cooperative partner with person that changes the rules of the game constantly, to show positive leadership even though society does not support your leadership, passing shit tests, playing dread games, passing her threat game and imposing your own, work, work, and more work, and I just have to ask “For what?”
Your running with the Red Queen. How is that any way to live life as a man?
Schopenhauer said “Love! If you’d have thought it up, you would be thought to be quite daft”.
Mentu reposted Minters article, too:
http://www.theuniversityofman.com/blog/2012/10/6/marriage-and-fatherhood-are-you-ready.html?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews
Great minds and all that….
I reluctantly admit to no longer recommending marriage for men. For secular men, a no-brainer. For church men, a sad outcome. Divorce rape at the behest of a ‘good, church girl’ is all too likely.
I am happily married. But that can change. Tomorrow if the bride of my youth chose, i could be accused of domestic violence, be forced to leave the house i paid for, and have to move into a single room hovel whilst my pay is garnished. This is what women can do, thanks to the state, and its armed, white knight beta enablers.
Its not likely, but the state rewards this behaviour. Why encourage other men to throw the dice when the odds are more than one in three they will lose?
To hark back to the restaurant analogy (11/6/2012), i am inside and enjoying the meal. But still acutely conscious of behaviour at other tables, in the alleyway, and outside around campfires.
Had i taken the red pill earlier, i very likely would have gtow. And feminism will increasingly encourage the decline of the west as more men see the truth for what it is, and leave women to their vibrators, fifty shades books and cats.
Mark Minter,
Gbfm has visited before. His comments tend to polarise. I like his use of analogies, though not all do.
I appreciate his dislike of central bankers and their abuse of old testament admonitions about false weights and measures. I notice that people get offended at the comments about anal sex, though.
Simple application of Gresham’s Law, as Farm Boy noted above. Excellent for all of that (although you might argue that “clipping” is way insufficient to describe what’s happened to marriage). Also, tbc makes a great point about how all the anti-man legislation coming down now is simply an normal reaction of the powers that be to the emergence of black markets in the face of a terminally debased official coinage.
Excellent post. I’ve nothing to add as it stands alone (as has been mentioned) but it’s good to see such depth of quality in the comments. You can measure a blog by the quality of comments and discussions and this blog and Rollo’s stand out by some margin.
that sums up the lesson for the day .
best analogy ever used!!
Can anybody think of a single improvement in marriage from a guy’s perspective?
Heh. It really is an oxymoron, isn’t it?
So then how do you make a reformed slut marriageable?
The only way is to melt down whatever is left and destroy it. Hopefully there will be enough left to work with. She has to get faith, quit the lifestyle, ditch the friends and the old boyfriends. This will only work if the coin wants to be melted down and agrees to be destroyed.
Then go get some more raw metal and add it to the melted down slag. Give it some prayer, medical care and therapy. Hopefully you will be able to find some of the old metal that was
shaved or broken off, throw it into the slag, and restore what was given up. The coin has to agree to accept that old, broken off or shaved metal, as well as new metal that it’s never had before.
The coin then has to be refashioned, refurbished and struck again. This can be a long process of prayer, therapy, cleaning, learning new behaviors and responses, and education. The coin also needs to sit in the mint for a year or so until its Maker decides it is ready for recirculation.
But this coin is not as good as it was before. Now, to an inexperienced merchant just getting started, this coin looks pretty good. Has the markings, the stamps, the mint year, the detail. But it still has some flaws, which you can see if you look closely enough. The Maker doesn’t have perfect material to work with. It’s been adulterated so you can’t get all the dings and imperfections out. The edges look very new. The lettering stamped on the outside is just a little too perfect. It’s a little too shiny. Experienced money handlers see the small splotches where the new metal bonded with the old. They use the coin for what she’s worth and pass her to the next merchant. She hopes she will end up in a collection somewhere, and perhaps she will for some neophyte numismatist.
But the worst part?
Well, in the milling process, the Maker does his best with the raw materials He has. Some of the metal wouldn’t adhere because the remainders that got to the Mint wouldn’t accept it for some reason. There was only a smaller amount of metal that could be used.
So she started out as a full 25 cent piece, a perfectly good quarter.
She ended up as a run of the mill, ordinary, everyday Jefferson nickel, a 5 cent piece.
@Mark Minter & Apollo.
In regards to Gbfm I have tried to make sense of his writings and acronyms for the last 6 months / countless posts.
With that being said – I have have done my part to best of my ability in a attempt to understand his “internet guttural” – it is a hit and miss effort and time consuming having too do a google search (ie “lzozolz” which is internet slang for “an abbreviation for laughing out loud” according to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolz).
What I mentioned was not a ad hominem but a man to man observation / suggestion.
Shalom
Dear Michael,
What is more important–one’s grammar or one’s soul?
Tucker Max (whose name rhymes with Goldman Sax) sodomizes women and tapes it secretly. Then, the “conservative” Weekly Standard repeats his lies about his succeth and his height, labeling him as a six-foot-tall butthexual hero, while ignoring the true heroes jumping on grenades in foreign wars on foreign shores.
How come good Christians do not speak out against this? Did not Moses et al. teach against adultery and fornication and butthext?
Why do I mention butthext in the context of fiat currencies and counterfeiters? It is because Dante and Milton associated all these things, as did many others. In Dante’s Inferno the butthexters are placed on the same level of hell as the counterfeiters, as both engage in unnatural acts that produce no true wealth, but only debauch and degrade.
The counterfeiters funded the women’s movement and encourage butthexters to desoul and debauch your future wife, robbing her of value and you of an intact family. While such atrocities are occurring in mass, the funny thing is that the myopic Christians here are saying, “GBFM said butthext! I’m offended!” at the very same moment that their future wife is being butthexted and desouled while it is secretly taped. Never will the “good christian” speak out against the butthexting of their wives, but they will instead persecute the prophet trying to save the future wives from sore buttholes, no kids, and cats; whence she is robbed of her greater destiny as a beloved wife, mother, and grandmother.
Then Dalrock states that men need Game–they need to learn how to satiate their pre-buttcocked wive’s anal cravings. Whereas da GBFM states that what we need is a renaissance, whence the literature of the land teaches women the far greater wealth of serving the higher ideals as opposed to the fiat bottom line. Dalrock is focusing on getting laid, while GBFM is focusing on the future of civilization. And so da GBFM is persecuted, for Jesus also focused not on getting laid, but on the higher ideals of His Father and the future of civilization.
And so I lozozzlzlzlzozo that I may not weep.
Best,
GBFM
One of the best posts ever, Dalrock – outstanding in content and tone.
“Marriage” in the Biblical sense has actually been dead in the USA for a long time – the origins go back to the last third of the 19th century, when America already had the reputation among Europeans of being a femdom bitch paradise – but the evils of the 1960s have now fully seeped into the culture and there’s no going back.
Like Roissy, I plan to be by the pool, martini in hand, enjoying the collapse.
And I say that as a Christian, since most of what masquerades as “the faith” these days is frankly Satanic. We have reached the point where the evildoers have now fully taken over, speaking in the name of Christ falsely. There are happy exceptions, but not enough – certainly not enough to change the basic dynamics of rot.
It will all come crashing down, as was long ago foretold. Not gonna be pretty but, really, for men the collapse may be no worse than what already exists; and possibly better.
In the meantime – a few decades, tops, before the USA goes completely south (best case is we’re a femdom Brazil, populated by various shades of brownskins, broke and going nowhere: no thanks) – men need to avoid marriage, keep that marriage strike going, and hold to your beliefs as best you can.
You know there is a glimmer of hope when a member of the clergy counsels men offline – I heard this last week, own ears – that guys need to be really, really careful about marrying these days. Not talking anyone out of it, mind you (not his job), but adding the dose of sanity which our popular culture and, tragically, most fathers, do not.
If you’re not a dad, I recommend not becoming one. If you are, be the best one you can be (even if you have already been reduced to part-time dad status by our “just” society: in fact especially if you have been), do not let your kids – especially our precious sons – be fully contaminated by the Satanism all around, including in most churches today. Steel them for the hard fight – spiritual, emotional, political, and eventually physical – which lies ahead.
Deti is clearly a modern-day Alchemist – turning base-metal into Gold.
Fantastic metaphor, indeed.
Folks,
lzozozozo
A lot of you are saying “Fantastic metaphor, indeed.”
The reason that it is a fantastic metaphor is that it *is* *exactly* what is happening! your wife is being debauched and degraded, and then passed off to you “as good as new,” in the asset-transferring marriage scam. Just as the fed controls the debasement of the currency and profits from it, so too do they profit from the debasement of your future wife.
The less you have of your wife, the more the corporate-state bernankifiers own of her. The less she serves you and the children, the more time she has to serve the corporate state.
Feminism is a highly-profitable “entitlement” business as it causes women to serve the BErnanke bottom line as opposed to the higher Judeo Christian ideals.
Women are voluntarily butthexted in college and then come up with legislation to transfer assets from non-butthetxing betas to compensate them for tehir sore buttholioslzozlzlzoz.
Never in a million years would a truly Christian women give her ass to other men in college and her husband’s assets to the corporate-state, which is what college trains her to do.
@GBFM – hey dude ( my So Cal surfer roots post ghetto Detroit, MI).
I think you are missing the point.
I dont understand what the word “butthext” means despite a google search. In regards to your last post (thank you – is understandable & noteworthy).
Btw, I came upon the conclusion that butthext it is regards to sodomy in the context you wrote vs the word ‘but”. As a Jewish Disciple I am not offended by the use of the word of sodomy or anal sex to make a point. However, the definition of butthext is unclear.
The grammar you are using in the context you are writing in not “understandable”. It is not poetry.
It is not a ad-hominem against you, your writings, your soul but the language and method you in you are communicating is “NOT CLEAR” and “DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND”.
I suggest not using untraceable internet slang to express your thoughts in writing without any visual/tone/inflection.
People who have English as a 2nd language use English quite differently than native American English, however, they are understandable due to a common understanding of words despite the different sentence structure.
I hope that I am making sense.
Shalom
GBFM is an anti-gamer fanatical scummy conservative … Like all anti-gamers & conservatives, he is a diversion
Conservatives NEVER OFFER SOLUTIONS, only diversions
Which is why they droolingly support the mainstream, theyre diversions from offering real solutions
Maintainance of The Status quo is a diversion to REAL CHANGE & Progress & Innovation
Notice how Liberals only support diversions to the point of fantasies & junk science ideologies, ie gender studies & sociological ills …
Liberals are in fact radical conservatives, taking conservatism towards puritanism ie feminism & nazism ie socialism
Feminism, socialism, along with conservatism, exist to support criminal power structures, like government & the corrupt police
Which is WHY anti-gamers & conservatives like GBFM will ALWAYS turn on men
Theyre fanatical supporters of the existing sexual & moral power structure today, which benefits unproductive women & men who support criminal governments & propoganda, with war criminals as presidents & figureheads
Remember anti-gamers WANT to remain ignorant about how women manipulate & use men, which is WHY they turn on men who try to better themselves
Conservatives WANT to remain ignorant about how society is a highly corrupt criminal society …
Most people exist at the fringes of mainstream, once they break free of their pre-conceived notions of how THEY think society operates, the result is always a culture shock
Most conservatives & anti-gamers exist in a perpetual state of culture shock …
Dear Michael,
I am of a Jewish Mother and a Christian Father, like Jesus.
Why are you spending so much time protesting my grammar, while spending not time speaking out against the bernankification of our women? Why are you not protesting against Simon and Schuster for publishing and promoting those who secretly tape anal sex with women?
I don’t get it.
As a Jew, should you not be following the teachings of Moses and speaking Truth to Power?
Perhaps you are afraid of the buttcocking Pharaohs of our day?
Why do you give them a free pass on sodomy and the debasement of our women and our currency, which violates Moses’ “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” and instead devote all your words to persecuting the GBFM for his art and poetry?
Perhaps ye have some soul-searching to do? Do you read the Old Testament often? Perhaps you should?
BEst, GBFM
Dear MackPUA,
I am pro game, son.
Had I not negged your mom, ignored her texts and calls, and then banged her one night hard, you would not be here.
I’m pro game–I’m just not saying that gaming your mom was Christian behavior, as Dalrock might suggest it is.
So MackPUA — are you a good Christian? Is JEsus with you when you neg a woman to get her to spread? Have you ever read the Bible, or any this blog?
While I understand your argument about wanting to find a wife with strong morals in agreement with your own, your equation of education with a lack of morality is a bit disturbing, as well as the idea that men see an educated woman as a bad quality. Is a 22 year old college graduate really too old? I think many of the Christian men I know see it as an asset that their wives have college degrees. In the event where the husband is unable to provide for the family because he is laid off or cannot find full time employment, the men I know are quite thankful that their educated wives can step in, find work, and help support the family. Even if these families would prefer for the wife to stay at home, they find her ability to earn money a better option than letting the family go hungry. Isn’t it also very useful for a woman to have an education to fall back on in case she is ever widowed and needs to support herself and her children? There are also many women, such as my mother, who are stay at home moms who use their own college education to home school their children, which is a popular conservative practice I assume you probably support. Some states make it difficult for a non-licensed teacher to home school, but because my mother was educated, she was able provide my brother and me with a complete education, through high school level. Your article also functions with the assumption that women’s only purpose is to marry. What about the many Christian women who choose to pursue other callings? My best friend is a 28 year old woman, a doctor who has completed many years of advanced education, and yes, you may not believe this but at 28 she is still a virgin. She has spent many years doing medical missions work overseas because she feels called to that. Would marrying this godly but educated woman be an act of “settling”? Your article would seem to indicate that. She may desire to marry one day, but as of yet hasn’t met anyone. If a girl does not receive a marriage proposal at her high school graduation, what do you propose she do? Stay home doing needlework and burdening her parents until a proposal comes along or seek to find useful work that helps people? Also, should women function under the same assumptions that any college-educated man we may meet is clearly corrupted and has no virtue? If a woman can be assumed to be less than a virgin at an older age, should we assume the same thing about men? Should all couples just be married off at the end of high school and sent out to raise a family without any advanced education to help them support that family? This type of arrangement worked well in an agricultural society but that is no longer the environment we live in. While I understand why you may not be interested in marrying a 38 year old Women’s Studies graduate with a career in another city and 3 illegitimate children, your line of reasoning starts at “education” and ends with “old undesirable whore” without leaving any room for the many virtuous but educated women in between, and it is this over-generalization and lack of considering situational variables that I find deeply offensive. I can see your audience is primarily men, but even some of them may agree that their educated wives are an asset and no less virtuous than an uneducated woman.
I’ve come to appreciate GBFM over time. If he changed his schtick he would still make valuable points; but it wouldn’t be as apocalyptically poetic.
Opus:
Not really. More like taking 24 karat gold and refurbishing it into maybe, MAYBE, 10 karat. At best.
Thanks zippycatholic!
Love the “apocalyptically poetic” comment!
In college I dated this Catholic for a short time. She was a virgin, so she would only let me put it in just a little bit, so as to preserve her virginity. It was enough to orgasm both of us. But it wasn’t full-on sex. So you can see how da GBFM only just shaved a tiny, little piece of the coin.
On night she wanted me to tie her up with one of my ties. And yes she was an innocent virgin! But da GBFM didn’t do it, as that would have been like shaving off the whole outer edge of the coin, or entering into QE3–Quantitative Easing 3.
I have often thought that when you have her pants off, and she is very wet, and you’re almost there, all one must do is whisper inher ear, “c’mon baby, let me quantitatively ease it in there, easing my quantity gently oh so gently there there easy like sunday morning baby ooh ooh yah.”
it was how mackpua was born–quantitative easing.
this is how beranke et al. debase the currency with everyone going “yes yes oh yes please more mor emore more MORE!” except they are easing massive quantities of inflation into da collective buythoslzozlzozlz lzozlzlzozlzlzozlz
It’s almost impossible to add something of value to a perfect post like that, Dalrock. The same ideas has been said once and again but rarely so clearly and concisely. I only wanted to point out that this debasing of marriage goes back more than a century. The 1950s marriage was already a debased marriage:
http://www.heretical.com/miscella/mmarrlaw.html
I really couldnt care less what your personal opinion is of GBFM
GBFM has made it clear he’s against men, he’s stated he’s an anti-gamer, & basically hates anyone trying to pro-actively work against a feminised society
He’s already flamed & trolled Dalrock on his own blog, & made it clear GBFM is a clueless conservative moron, with no idea of how society operates
In short he’s a diversion, which is why he uses attention whoring techniques like hackzor etc.,
If your stupid enough to side with idiot anti-gamer fuckwits like GBFM, you’ve got bigger problems then disagreeing with me pointing out the obvious about trolls like GBFM
People like GBFM offer NO SOLUTIONS or real contributions to posts, precisely because they have NO SOLUTIONS ,,,
Theyre just trolls …
He’s not here to offer anything of value, or anything of insight, he’s here to attention whore & divert from the conversation …
In short he’s just another useless scumsucking troll …
How many people dont know about banking & the fact its basically a printing press …
All he does is state the obvious & adds a layer of idiocracy to every thread he posts in …
All he does is, exists to hijack threads & attention whore to his own hideously under-informed website ..
His incessant whining about Dalrock & game on his blog, is virtually vomit inducing …
I would normally support ppl like GBFM, but after seeing his behaviour on his own blog, I’d rather he stayed heavily moderated …
Co-sign MackPUA(as if he needed it)
M, you packed so many straw men into your comment that it would take all day to destroy them all, but I’ll hit a few highlights:
These men would be what I like to call “stupid.”
Look, it’s not that we want wives who are ignorant. I’d love to have one who is knowledgeable about many subjects. But there are two problems with sending them to college. A) The courses themselves are steeped in modernism (I prefer that term to others like liberalism and feminism because it is, as Pope St. Piux X said, “the synthesis of all heresies,” so it includes them and more.) That’s the case throughout the higher education system, with very, very few small colleges as exceptions. But perhaps even worse is, B) the lifestyle she’ll be immersed in while she’s there. A major reason kids go to college is to sow their wild oats. That was already true for boys years ago, but now it’s equally true for the girls, and as we’ve discussed here before, when a girl decides to “bust out” and have some fun, it’s far easier for her to find willing partners than it is for a boy. So it’ll take a rare flower to emerge from 4+ years of that with anything approaching virginity intact. More likely she’ll have had a couple of drunken one-night hookups and one or two longer-term sexual relationships, and have her N up to a healthy 5 or so by the time she graduates. And I’m not talking about the sluts who sleep around on purpose; I’m talking about girls from good families who consider themselves fairly choosy, but go through a couple boyfriends and a couple mistakes along the way.
So if you want an educated wife who’s also been reasonably chaste, you can go on a quest for that needle in a haystack like your 28-year-old virgin doctor friend — knowing that she’s extremely rare and if you find her you’ll be competing for her against hundreds of eligible guys. Or you could hang out with homeschoolers and try to find a smart girl who’s already well self-educated by the time she hits 18 but who’s more interested in starting a family than going off to “experience” life. Another rare gem. You could also check out the local community college, looking for girls who still live at home while they take some practical classes; at least they aren’t immersed in the whole dorm-room-away-from-home lifestyle. You could also focus on finding one who’s intellectually curious enough to learn from home while she’s nursing children. There’s this thing called the Internet….
You don’t need a college education to homeschool; that’s one of the big lies the education establishment tells to keep ordinary people afraid to try it. If you taught your kids to tie their shoes and use the potty, you can teach them to read and do sums. Nowadays you can even enroll with homeschooling companies and send the homework off to them every week, and there are online tutors and so on. You can also educate yourself as you teach. (My calculus and computer teachers in high school were both taking the course as they taught it.)
That some states require a degree only means the citizens of those states should change the law; not that men should insist that their wives have degrees to satisfy the state. Or move to a state like Illinois or Texas, where the education of children is seen as the parents’ responsibility ,and no damn business of the state unless the parents want to make it so.
Of course we should. Sex feels good, and men and women both have a biological drive to seek it out. It only makes sense to assume that a group of 30-year-old men or women will include fewer virgins and more town bikes than a group of 20-year-olds. That doesn’t mean your 28-year-old virgin doctor can’t exist. Do you understand the difference between generalities and specifics? Do you know what the phrase “the exception that proves the rule” means?
Finding a mate is a numbers game. There may be 30 million or so women in my acceptable age range in the United States, but I’m never going to meet more than a thousand of them. Whittle that number down to the ones that are reasonably attractive, unmarried, childless, compatible enough on a few key attributes like religion and intelligence, and now you’re down to dozens. What are the odds that your virtuous friend is going to be in that small group? Fifty years ago, those odds were a lot better. Now they’re very bad — bad enough that you should assume she’s not unless she proves otherwise — and the odds get worse the older women get and the more time they spend getting “educated.” That’s what we’re talking about.
Dear MackPUA,
I ride with Homer, Virgil, Shakespeare, Milton, Moses, Mises, Jesus, Plato, Aristotle, Jefferson, Madison, Newton, Dante, Smith, Melville, and Hayek.
Put down Neil Strauss’s The Rule of The Game, pick up a Great Book or Classic, and come Ride With Us.
There are mysteries far greater than Mystery, and vistas of the soul that you won’t find with your nose in da pun tang punananianaian punannnilzozlzozlzozzlzolzozozz
John Galt: “…I am 38, MBA from top 5 university, 6 ft, fit, full head of hair, and financially independent. In other words, I am someone most women would consider a “catch”. And I choose to opt out.”
Congratulations! It is said that “the best revenge is to live well.” When dealing with the spoiled, over-privileged, over-entitled, and increasingly over-fed Modern femborg Womyn that infest our society today, it has been said by an anonymous blogger that “the best revenge is for a man to be successful, physically fit, and interesting. And then not date.”
Good luck my MGTOW brother; let us dispense Red Pill wisdom and spread it’s message of “real” freedom and independence far and wide.
As women begin to realize and accept the damage which they’ve caused, watching a ‘good man’ GHOW and remain out their clutches will just bring it home to them.
They now want to date/marry the same kind of guy that they used to gleefully reject, most often in the most vicious, cruel, and sadistic way that they could.
So he is now unavailable to her or anyone.
They had their chance — but he wasn’t ‘good enough’; they were too interested in sport-f**cking “attractive” a-holes, and being ‘free whores’ for the ‘exciting’, ‘romantic’ bad-boy thugs.
Well, let them herd cats.
And may they be wiser in their next life — because karma can be a REAL bitch.
Partly off-topic:
You know my English is not perfect (I am an European living in Latin America and I have had very limited exposure to English in my life but I write perfectly other three languages) but I couldn’t resist commenting about the English of M’s post.
I guess M considers herself as “an educated woman” . Her post shows how low education has fallen in the United States.
M seems to ignore that there is some thing called “a paragraph” so her post is a long list of sentences with no full stop. This would not be so bad if only did she give some structure to her ideas. Structuring ideas is an easy and basic skill that is learned during middle school or high school. By contrast, she writes sentences with no order and connection, as if she were sh*tting sentences all over the page.
I guess M considers herself quite an “asset” because she is so “educated” and she refers to the practice of stay-at-home mothers homeschooling their children. I’m sorry but I didn’t want a woman like that educating my children. I want my children to be able to write with some sense when they are in high school, let alone when they are in college.
Walking Liberty dropped her scales and grabbed a Glock.
DEar Joshua & MackPUA,
I understandeth dat u needz da lovely pusseisisispuuzusususyi and that were you to act as a true Christian, you would not get as much.
Cool.
I support and admire and respect Dalrock.
But still, gaming modern women and pursuing the teachings of Jesus Christ are very different pursuits. I know that some “christian” bloggers want to have their butthext and eat it too, but as MArk Twain said, “you can’t pray a lie.”
Perhaps ye are prodigal sons, but then, that means that someday, ye must return on home. 🙂
I like how at the end, even HOPE is gone.
zippycatholic says:
October 7, 2012 at 10:58 am
“I’ve come to appreciate GBFM over time.”
Here is the proof that MackPUA says:, October 7, 2012 at 10:36 am is right.
M: I don’t come here often, but I feel compelled to respond to your post.
GENERALLY speaking, the vast majority of young women who attend even a more conservative college (and even some bible colleges) will be indoctrinated further with feminist idealogies. Between the ages of 18 and 22, when these women would otherwise be learning how to be pleasing wives and loving mothers, they will GENERALLY be learning how to be drunkards, sleazy whores and “independent” feminists. Let’s suppose some women make it through liberal colleges/universities with family values intact (supposing they had family values before leaving for college): at age 22, this woman now likely has large sums of student loan debt which she expects to be borne by her new husband, if she marries soon. Her money will be HER money. I’ve seen it happen more times than I can count. Further, every woman’s chastity is threatened severely if living on campus in college. There might be hope for a woman living under her father’s roof and attending school, but for most, this isn’t the case.
Regarding widows, there is a thing called life insurance, which many husbands of housewives carry. Further, God commands the woman’s father, if living, to care for her and her children – in his absence, the church is to care for a widow in deed. If she is younger, she will likely remarry and become the financial responsibility of her new husband.
Most Christian women’s highest and first calling IS to wife and mother. For the few that are given the gift of chastity/singleness in Christ, of course these women should pursue what God has called them to do, such as work as a not-for-profic or missionary physician. Oftentimes, however, women who go into such fields are not “called” by God at all, but are fiercly independent and “called” only by their own self-interest and “independent” spirit. In pursuing a career as a Doctor, these women often become physicians at 28 or 30 years old only to stay in the career a brief period of time, wasting the investment that everyone has made for this woman – for as soon as her bio clock begins to expire, she will try to snag a husband and go “flex time, part time” or something, and subsequently split the career for extended maternity leave several times while building her brood, or leave the field entirely. It is a waste, for it is a spot in Med School and a spot in society which could have been better filled by a man who can be wholly dedicated to medicine. Your Doctor friend who is a virgin is to be commended, but she will be a casualty to the field of medicine and will have taken a job from a qualified man during the time she practiced while “waiting” for her husband/children to come along.
I don’t think anyone here is advocating young women “do needlepoint” and “burden their families” while waiting for a marriage proposal; there are really plenty of other options. Such a young woman might serve as a stay-at-home daughter, or she might work in a simple job that doesn’t require her to compromise her feminitity, or better yet, she might volunteer and work with the infirm, the elderly, the less fortunate. She might spend her time under the mentorship of an older Titus II woman who can teach her how to be a loving wife and mother, since this is a lost art and hardly anyone follows the word of God in this area. She can help her own mother manage the household. She would not be a burden at all. She would be protected by her father and taught of her mother, and prepared properly for Biblical marriage covenant.
Is this M the over educated mormon who gives hell at another mormon blog with her feminist schtick?? If it is so then it is not surprising at all…I didnt know that there were mormon feminists!! I guess they are no better than the regular churchian feminists…
M, Cail:
What Cail said. I would only add that it’s not so much the education, it’s what (and who) she does while she’s there. It’s also the attitude accompanying that newly minted degree.
The college educated woman is less likely to be willing to submit even to a dominant man. The new female college graduate sees herself as an equal in every way to her male counterparts. She has been living on her own, with minimal adult supervision, for 4+ years. The only guardrails are her grades and the upper limit on Daddy’s credit card. She probably has been working a job, has a beater car, and her own money.
She has total reproductive freedom. She can obtain a wide range of birth control and can get an abortion, and her parents need never be notified. She can be treated for STDs also without notifying her parents. She has her own place so she and her boyfriends/hookups can have sex in privacy.
Her parents know next to nothing of her sexual history. She’s had a couple of relationships that lasted more than 6 months. They strongly suspect she’s had sex with them, but they don’t confront her, not really. What can they do? What can they say about it? They had sex before they married, and had their own extensive partner histories. Besides, mom and dad don’t agree on how to raise kids anyway. That’s just one of the reasons they divorced when our heroine was 12.
She rarely sees her dad, who foots the college bill. She’s grateful for that, but she knows he’s kinda square and kinda clueless. The media tells her so. She’s been raised on “Everybody Loves Raymond” and “Home Improvement” and “How I Met Your Mother” and “Ridiculousness” and “Jersey Shore”. Men are either (1) clueless idiots who need women to save them; (2) “ugly boyfriends” to be exploited; or (3) hunky gorilla “trashdick” douchebags good for hanging out and slutting it up with.
She competes with men for places in graduate and professional schools. She competes with men for jobs. She finds out she is MORE competent than some of the men she attends school with or works with.
So once our heroine exits college with her notch count of 5 under her belt, she has learned not submission to a husband. She has not learned of male headship. She has not learned how to live peacefully and harmoniously with a man and work toward common goals. Instead, she has learned hatred, contempt and disrespect. She does not seek to stay with a man. She seeks to win, to dominate him, to impose her will on him, whatever that might be.
It’s not so much the education. It’s the attitude she brings into the marriage that’s toxic.
@GBFM – I’ll try one more despite the ad hominem.
It is not a ad-hominem against you, your writings, your soul but the language.
The “CONTEXT” in you are communicating is “NOT CLEAR” and “DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND” not the “CONTENT”.
Get it dude ?
Shalom
11Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 12Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
🙂 lzozzlzo
Dear Michael Singer,
Many people did not understand Jesus either, as he chose to speak in parables, like I do. He was persecuted by the Scribes and Pharisees of His day, for not speaking in their “official” terms.
You show your hand by never asking any specific questions, nor stating in any specific manner what exactly you do not understandeth.
This is because ye do not seek the light, and then ye blame the darkness on me.
But the truth of all this, all of the rest do see. 🙂
@M
Your inability to communicate in clear paragraphs is disturbing, but I’ll try to see past that. I’m not sure I can make my way past the irony of you being militant about education while demonstrating a lack of basic written communication skills, but I will do my best.
I don’t equate education with lack of morality. You read something that made you feel bad about your own choices and went on an emotional solopsistic rant. But what about meeeeeee! I’ll break it down as simply as possible. When young and most marriageable the vast majority of women are electing to make education and career a priority before marriage. During this time the vast majority of them also debase their chastity. Even those who don’t debase their chastity often make it much more difficult for them to truly bond with their husbands by waiting past the prime years for marriage. Then once the woman decides she needs to marry since she is facing a rapidly closing beauty and fertility window, the narrative is suddenly “If I’d only found you sooner I would have been able to keep my chastity for you”. This bit of nonsense is typically mixed with a “man up” message for good measure.
These are choices women have the right to make. But men must be allowed to make choices too. If marriage wasn’t a priority for the woman, why should a man take a huge risk on her?
She is a mormon feminist with a PhD…
that is M, I mean…sorry
Good post Dalrock, it clarifies a number of issues that have been brewing for a while, such as in this Pew Institute report, The Decline of Marriage And Rise of New Families.
Someday you may want to revisit in another post… if/how a ‘positive’ marriage might still be possible in the current world!
puas,
i understand that acting as a christian amongst bernankified womenz will gain you 0 access to their punanaies and buttholes, which they have naturally been taught to reserve for the “alpha” buttockers who are really betataz, while da true alahphas are da moses jesus homeric souls dat rise abovez da buttcckcokings ad unnani worship zllzoz.
what i am saying is that one cannot be a christian while acting like a non-christian just to get one’s peckerz wetz zlzoozzloz
i’m not sure why this is such an emotional concept for so many of you.
by acting unchristain, one is not a christian.
i did not come up with this rule. jesus did.
so take it up with Him.
lzozozoozozoz
@ezra
Between the ages of 18 and 22, when these women would otherwise be learning how to be pleasing wives and loving mothers, they will GENERALLY be learning how to be drunkards, sleazy whores and “independent” feminists
You could have stopped there. No real need to say more.
The Norse had a pretty good low tech solution for coin clipping. They traded in hack silver and most transactions were weighed. Its not perfect, lead coins and badly alloyed coins were still out there but it stopped clipping.
As with silver, the weighing and measuring of a woman is essential, even with debased metals.
In English slang, a clippie is:
a. A person who cuts bits off coins
b. A Hairdresser
c. A Bus Conductor
Americans will get two points for a correct answer, Brits (and Empire) only one.
Dalrock, I know you down mind a little self-promotion: The Decline of the Male.
Kinda offtopic:
GBFM, i immensly enjoyed the few dozen posts of yours i deciphered. Easily some of the most interesting, insightfull comments i have read in the manosphere.
That said, most often i skip them thinking “Goddamn, why has he have to have this weird fetish?”
Its a REAL, REAL PAIN to decipher them for me as a foreigner.
Have a nice day, and thanks nonetheless!
Excuse me, *don’t mind.*
@imnobody
I guess M considers herself as “an educated woman” . Her post shows how low education has fallen in the United States.
View what Ezra said ,
Between the ages of 18 and 22, when these women would otherwise be learning how to be pleasing wives and loving mothers, they will GENERALLY be learning how to be drunkards, sleazy whores and “independent” feminists
My niece became a feminist in college. She became sleazy one year after graduation. Seems to always happen one way or another
It is time for GBFM to recite his epic poem “I luvs ye of little faith.”
What M is doing is playing dumb from superiority. She fully understands what is meant by an educated woman in the context we are speaking in.
That’s fine, but it puts me in mind of a question a friend once asked me: would you rather be right or be happy? So I’m right, and I’m getting revenge by withholding my awesomeness from all the unworthy females out there. But then what? Ok, so I’m interesting. Interesting to whom? I’m successful, so I’ve got money in the bank. To spend on what?
I’m not suggesting that men should just ignore the risks and marry the first tatted-up single mom who’s willing. But there has to be some middle ground of acceptable risk, where you can find a woman who fits your criteria and is willing to step into your frame, to give yourself a good chance of having a good marriage and family. The risk will never be zero — it never was — but surely it can be brought down to acceptable levels with some preparation and discipline, for the majority of guys who want it.
If I didn’t believe that, I suppose I’d go ahead and join a monastery. At least there I might accomplish something more useful than going to work every day to support cooler hobbies.
Everytime I read these posts I ask myself “Is there no forgiveness in Christ?” Because I don’t see it on this blog. Did Joseph not marry Mary who was with child? Do women not deserve second chances? I agree with a lot that is shared at Dalrock but I also know that he is wrong on some things. Redemption covered my sins. Sex outside marriage is sinful for both man and woman.
And please take note, when you tell me I am a slut because I was not smart in my youth, please know that you are calling a redeemed child of Christ a slut. I cant imagine Christ takes kindly to someone calling His children names all the while patting the Brothers in Christ (or not) for not marrying and sleeping with those sluts. Vengence is mine says God. Be mindful what you say in your self rightousness!
Cail Corishev wrote,
I agree. As poor a shape as marriage is in, there is no need to succumb to a fatalistic view. Feminism can be resisted and marriage can be reclaimed.
@Cail: I think you have a good point.
I’m sure to be criticized for saying this, but I truly believe it, as both my husband and I have come from extreme brokenness earlier in our lives (divorces). Both of us were destroyed emotionally, financially, and mentally in the Un-Family Courts. Statistically, we are a HORRIBLE risk. Yet, here we are, five years later, successfully and happily married, with two little ones and another on the way.
We have few friends; even fewer “church” friends; people accuse us of being too “revolutionary” – too “serious”. We believe in the God of the Bible. We believe loving Him is obeying Him and His word, and loving one another. We do not believe in the heresies being sounded from many modern pulpits regarding marriage, family and children. If someone is teaching error, we correct them.
We do our best to honor God in our marriage, as He designed it to function. We are imperfect; we are aware of it. We do our best to teach our children the ways of God, even our older children who watched us fail at marriage the first time.
Obviously, we were not pure virgins when we met. We both had children. You have to decide what is acceptable for yourself. Not all single parents are a good risk.
I think the Bible says something about all things being possible with God.
@M:
Is 22 years old to old to be wife?
Raiders of the Lost Ark:
It’s not the years its the mileage.
in order to elaborate, its not that 22 in and of itself is too old for a woman to be a good wife its the amount of mileage, sexual mileage that she has probably been indulging in up to that point. In college, even the good girls have their, um, “adventures”. While each man may judge that as a mark against her differently they are still judged for appropriateness of marriage by the amount of “fun” they had.
CB
The risk will never be zero — it never was — but surely it can be brought down to acceptable levels with some preparation and discipline, for the majority of guys who want it.
————————————-
How do you make a twenty year forecast on who a person is going to be so far into the future with everyone doing their level best to give her any easy bailout? Who you believe she currently is, isn’t who she will be in five, ten or twenty years.
How did our fathers, and grandfathers, and every other ancestor in history? How do you make a thirty-year forecast on what a house will be worth when it’s paid off? How do you judge which investment will provide the best for your retirement? How do you forecast which of your interests will be most in demand in the future when choosing a career to train for?
You look at the facts at hand, ask people you respect for advice, use your best judgment — then hold your breath and jump. That’s life. Again, I’m not saying it can be risk-free, but why should it be when nothing else important is? I’m saying that’s a red herring. I’m saying there can be a level of risk that’s acceptable to many men. If it’s not acceptable to some men, that’s fine. I’m certainly not telling any guy he shouldn’t MGTOW. I’d just like to get the same consideration in return, which I don’t see when I read things like, “Any man who gets married is a fool.”
Giving up entirely on marriage just isn’t acceptable to many of us. In the words of Sam Kinison, “What are we gonna do, give sheep the vote?”
Cail
You do have a valid point that is why I’m not as critical of the choices men make in their lives to deal with misandry. Be it PUA,MGTOW, married man using game to survive his wife and marriage. I even understand the grass eaters and peter pans. The only men I hate or have a problem with are men the survive by destroying other men for social favor from the beasteexample would be a family court judge violating constitutional rights so as to not appear against women in an effort to keep his status and job. The white knights can also go to hell. The greatest treat to civilized humanity was and is the churchian that has betrayed faith itself to accomodate feminism for their own worldly survival. And then through social status blessed not by god but by the reassuring approval and attendance of rebellious sluts and their pet manginas they use their position to commit the greatest crime of all. They take honest men on the blue pill. men that have goodness in their heart and use churchian teachings to shame these men into remaning pure and faithful to the blue pill lie and argue any attempt to stop the madness is some how violating the word of god. In the mean time men are consumed by marriage and divorced. Children taken from them, homes,lifes work, freedom and well being from claims of abuse and sexual misconduct all with out due process. Man up they say and “good men” from al fields and walks of life the more loyal and commited to their wife and family the more brutal the misandry is applied. The military has a higher number of men committing suicide than are dieing in actual combat. Thomas Ball burned himself alive when misandry consummed him all at once.
So Cail do what makes you happy under the circumstances of misandry. Let yuor empathy for your fellow man guide you to understand and find a choice in life that denies the beast. Anything that will contribute to childless spinsterhood would be great. We were all born in the middle of a war of misandry that was not of our choosing.
How did our fathers, and grandfathers, and every other ancestor in history?
I don’t know about America but my father got married and divorce was out of the question (in fact, illegal). He never faced the possibility of being separated from his children and his assets. He knew that, thirty years in the future, he would be married with my mother and with all his wealth.
You look at the facts at hand, ask people you respect for advice, use your best judgment — then hold your breath and jump. That’s life.
That’s life for men.
I would like the same message being preached on women. So, if they screw it up, don’t ask anybody else to clean the mess they are created. About women it is always “security, safety”. About men it is always about risk and manning up.
I think it was in Susan Walsh page when I saw a woman giving advice to a man: “You have to risk it. You have to be bold. He who doesn’t risk doesn’t win”. I replied to her: “Why don’t you take the risk you preached on others? Is this “do what I say not do what I do? Why women always say “risk is good but not for me”?. She was embarrassed.
I get that people have to be married and the MGTOW idea is only for a minority. I myself would like to get married. But the history of the XX century has been a series of steps making:
1. Marriage riskier and riskier for men
2. Telling men they have to assume the risk because that’s life.
Sorry, but that’s not life. That’s the consequence of forty years of social engineering. Our forefathers never considered being separated from their kids and from their assets by a frivorce. And you don’t buy a car if they have 50% risk of having a crash accident.
Here is one view of the future of marriage, for some definition of the word, and as a free bonus, you can watch in on TV right now. If you have a strong stomach…
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/10/05/honey-boo-boo-child-and-incentives/
Christian girl into college = churchian slut out of college.
No more Mrs degrees. No ring. Obey your culture. Increase your N count.
Seen it happen.
Cail Corishev says:
How did our fathers, and grandfathers, and every other ancestor in history
————————-
They lived in a society that valued the things that kept marriage viable. They lived in a society that condemned rather than celebrated misbehavior and sexual license of every sort. That’s how.
How do you make a thirty-year forecast on what a house will be worth when it’s paid off?
———————–
During the Subprime mortgage crisis, you didn’t. People stopped taking those risks.
Giving up entirely on marriage just isn’t acceptable to many of us.
——————————–
I understand that, but the risks are significant and all flow in one direction. You say the risks aren’t zero, but the risks of going to the store for some bread and the risks of playing Russian Roulette are equally non-zero and saying, ‘hey, that’s life’, doesn’t really address the essence of the problem. The failure rate is more than 50% of those who even bother to marry. Many don’t marry at all these days and that number seems to be rising. I doubt most of those people who did marry expected to fail. You can assume you are above average and that you will beat the odds, but the odds are, you won’t.
I wouldn’t invest my money in a stock or a bond that had a greater than 50% failure rate, and only then do you discover if the Marriage Bond you invested in is worth anything. If I wouldn’t risk my money, then why would I invest my life in such a bond?
Shurrukin
What you to me have discribed is what an insane and sane society looks like.
Shurrukin
What you to me have discribed is what an insane and sane society looks like.
———————————-
Dalrock did that in the original post and it does describe the problem rather well. The risks are simply too high for any rational judgment. Obviously people marry for emotional reasons that aren’t subject to rational decision making, and that gives it a life beyond what it would have in a world of Vulcan’s.
Pingback: The Manosphere and the State of Marriage « Adventures in Red Pill Wifery
I don’t want to minimize the risks; they’re certainly significant, and they’ve been made much worse by liberal social engineering. And I don’t want to let women off the hook either. Fixing them has to be part of the solution. (I have my doubts about whether they have the ability to hear this message, though.) But as men, all we can control is our own actions. Maybe we didn’t make this bed, but we either lie on it or on the floor. That’s what I meant by “that’s life.” Other generations didn’t have the same risks, but they had risks, and they had to judge which ones to take.
To continue the stock market analogy: if 50% of the people entering the stock market ended up bankrupt, I wouldn’t be in a hurry to throw my money into it either. But say I do some research and find that many of those people bought stocks on whim, or based on how cool the company’s ads were, or by their horoscopes. I find that many didn’t look into a company’s background or keep an eye on it after buying the stock, just assuming it’d be fine because it looked good when they discovered it. Many had no idea what it took to make a company profitable, or had a clue about things like dividends. Some bought so many different stocks that they couldn’t keep track of any of them and didn’t even realize when some were going under.
I also see that some of the people on the other side of the 50% divide are doing very well — cleaning up, actually, and very happy. But they had to do their homework, and they have to do due diligence in keeping an eye on things. They only invest in companies that appear very reliable or offer tremendous opportunities for profit — preferably both. And even then there are no guarantees — they still have losses from time to time, and it’s even possible for some very bad luck to put them in with the former 50%. But overall, once I run some numbers, it looks like people who handle it this way get the risk of bankruptcy down to 10% or less.
Now it’s a very different risk-reward ratio, but I would suggest it’s a more realistic one than just looking at the success rate of the average American chump and assuming that your odds are the same.
One way to counteract society and the pro-female rules is to build up an image in her mind that you are a dynamite pack. Let her know that if she decides to pull the plug looking for cash and prizes she is really pushing the full-destruct button. You will clean out the bank accounts and blow it all at a casino. You will roll the cars into a river. The house will burn. You will quit your job and be a bum. That’s if you don’t end up in jail. You will bring it all down, if she pushes the button. She gets nothing out of it.
Why doesn’t anyone sell divorce insurance?
This is really the only part of what you’re saying that I disagree with. You can use rational judgment about anything. You’re using rational judgment when you say the risks are too high for you. That’s fine; you’re the only one who can make that judgment. Just let me make mine, and don’t tell me I’m an idiot or brainwashed by feminism if mine doesn’t agree with yours.
Classic.
@Gabrielle
Imagine a world where everything isn’t actually about you. In this imaginary world, imagine that there exist men with hopes and dreams of their own. How would you respond to this post in such an imaginary world?
But overall, once I run some numbers, it looks like people who handle it this way get the risk of bankruptcy down to 10% or less.
——————————–
So which group has a 10% divorce rate? Catholics? Lutherans? Mormons? Baptists? The only group I know of are the Amish.
That’s fine; you’re the only one who can make that judgment. Just let me make mine, and don’t tell me I’m an idiot or brainwashed by feminism if mine doesn’t agree with yours.
—————————————-
I certainly didn’t mean to suggest you are an idiot and if I did I apologize for that. What I meant is that we ALL make decisions that aren’t rational and in many ways, they involve the most valuable part of our lives. Simply based on the numbers marriage makes little sense, but few of us live our lives as accountants. Marriage is viable because of the emotional aspects involved, rather than the rational. That was my meaning.
And I don’t want to let women off the hook either. Fixing them has to be part of the solution.
I suggest you you go to Jezebel and convince them that they have to support default custody for fathers and alimony and child support from mother to father. Then, tell them that “that’s life”, that they have to risk it and that their foremothers always had risks too.
(I have my doubts about whether they have the ability to hear this message, though.)
In summary, I don’t want to let women off the hook but I am letting them off the hook. I only preach on men.
Don’t worry. Many men are not hearing your message either. After forty years hearing that we only have to accept things the way they are and I can do nothing else but play in a rigged game that is more and more rigged every day, some of us have other solutions:
– Expat (as I did).
– MGTOW.
– PUA.
I also see that some of the people on the other side of the 50% divide are doing very well — cleaning up, actually, and very happy.
Have you seen the statistics about the happiness of American marriages that remain married? Or are you talking because talking is fun?
some of us have other solutions:
– Expat (as I did).
– MGTOW.
– PUA.
I forgot the fourth one:
– Cohabiting without marrying.
‘Christian girl into college = churchian slut out of college.
No more Mrs degrees. No ring. Obey your culture. Increase your N count.
Seen it happen.
‘
It’s simply too long for most people in general.
Most attractive women will put out simply because the options are too tasty and despite what the media says women are hyper-sexual especially during college. They are just picky about who they will be hyper-sexual with.
Putting all these adonis like studs in front of her and expecting her to abstand is like putting crystal meth in front Cletis the slack jawed yokel. Shit’s going to happen.
The ‘good girls’ that I know that didn’t have sex were unattractive point blank. Their options sucked, so necessity becomes a virtue. Conversely, ultra hot Christian women were more likely to remain virgins. Everyone in the middle, it was just a matter of time.
What’s funny though about shaming men is that the Christian men that should have had options were far more likely than the female counterparts to be virgins post college. I knew Tim Tebow types, fit, good character, etc. that I knew didn’t get action. I firmly believe if you put a naked Megan Fox in their bed, they would run out of the room screaming. Where as if Colin Farrell was in one of the inner varsity woman’s bed, that’s one less virgin on your hands. And you know what in college there are plenty of Colin Farrells running around.
The one sticking point is that they had no game, strike that they had anti-game. Well tally up another point for game. Also, when they did get married, I always shuddered when thinking about their relationship. The woman 9 out of 10 times ran everything.
I would from time to time because of my upbringing make an effort to go and try to connect but every single time like clockwork, the groups would leave this bitter bitter taste in my mouth. It’s was like I was stuck in this bizarro world that combined Mr.Rogers, Beverly Hills 90210 and Sunday School with college aged kids and everyone thought it was great idea. They were ‘nice’ without being nice.
All the harsh rigid social conventions such as rank, hierarchy, popularity, etc were there but it was wrapped in a sacchrine fake veneer. The actual alphas knew what they were but had to fake being a beta but at the same time subetly pull alpha shit. These guys were definitely pulling ass on the sly while Tim Tebow types were geniuely distraught over having looked at porn two weeks ago. I think college Christian groups would make good training for politicians. In hindsight, so glad I didn’t fully get into that scene.
Let me summarize M’s critique:
Clipping is a good thing. Now you can carry more coins in your pocket because they are lighter and smaller!
@Gabrielle
“Forgiveness” DOES NOT EQUAL “no earthly consequences”.
In a logical and sane world:
Convicted embezzlers are not allowed to be church treasurers, regardless of forgiveness.
Or just look at the statistics over at The Social Pathologist (socialpathology.blogspot.com/):
Virgin bride & groom = 2 count = >50% correlation of divorce
Outward religiousness does not change the divorce statistic, only the actual behavior. See James -“I will show my faith by my works.”
Or in biblical example:
King David committed adultery with Bathsheba and murdered her husband, Uriah. As a result their illegitimate baby died, and much later David lost his kingdom temporarily and was publicly humiliated by his wives publicly sleeping with his rival son, all as punishment for this sin. These consequences were all after the forgiveness and reconciliation with God.
In Ezra 8-10, after seeking reconciliation with God and forgiveness, the men of Israel still had to divorce their foreign wives and send them and THE CHILDREN away.
“Forgiveness” DOES NOT EQUAL “no earthly consequences”. It does not mean all past problems are swept under the rug.
There is no such thing as a reformed slut in the worldly sense. You can repent and find your self in heaven but that repentance does no entitle you to live a safe and secure life as the wife of a christian man. A man on death fow for sexual assault and murder of a child can find his way into heaven. Not a snow balls chance in hell he lives as a free man. No rings for sluts is not go to hell bitch. Get scared straight carouseler the male pill comes your odds of being a childless spinster are the same as a beta male growing old with his submissive loyal wife.
@GMFM – as mentioned from a foreigner your content is unrecognizable and difficult to follow/ interpret.
Here is a example – your definition is “bernankified” ?
Btw, you are unscriptural and waayyyyyy off base in comparing the clear language of Christ in the parables to your use of internet slang. He spoke to them with language they understood. It was a perception / heart problem recognizing “righteousness” not a language problem.
Is 6 He said, “Go, and tell this people, ‘You hear indeed, but don’t understand; and you see indeed, but don’t perceive.’Make the heart of this people fat. Make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn again, and be healed.”
The last time I checked I never heard Jesus use unintelligible (impossible to understand) language.
Wait I get it !!!!!! Your posting in “tongues” !!!!
Is 28 Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people,
1 Cor 14″…. everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?
You are seriously suggesting to compare the hidden parables of the Kingdom told by the Son of G_D to unintelligible internet slang…..Ooooookkkkk…..
Your reply shows a complete irreverence to the Holy Scriptures.
May G_D grant you insight and revelation and repentance for a such a act of “being out of your mind”.
Obviously you have taken honest feedback as a attack. That was not my intention. Please accept my apology for offending you. Moving forward I will simply not reading your post – since I obviously “dont get it”
Shalom
College christian groups are great for unplugging. Women in college helpfully showed just as much career worship, the pursuit of status and errant belief in the apex fallacy.
Secular girls were actually more honest to deal with. Their games were easier to interpret. But of course, not dating material, and those hypergamous churchian sluts knew it well.
I ran into a blog online that asked women to give an estimate of the number of sexual partners they have had. Some of them had their 1st sexual experience at 13yrs of age and the maximum number of sexual partners one woman had was 100. I wonder if these women would ever be able to settle down? There was one woman on that blog who was complaining that her husband cannot get over the fact that she had over 20 sexual partners before marriage compared to his two. The husband at this point remains quite unsure of himself and no amount of convincing from his wife that she has got over that phase can satisfy him in order to put the whole matter to rest and move on.
College churchian women were the worst.
The only cool women I have ever met/been involved with were either secular or Christian drop outs.
I never have seen such entitlement as I have seen with churchian women. The world revolves around them and their desires and concerns. Christian beta orbiters as far as the eye can see. You automatically get to up your point score by about two points.
And if you happen to be one these women’s boyfriend, Lord help you. You are officially her property. The worst/funniest is the porn drama. If she found her bf had porn, it turned into drama worthy of the best of daytime soap opera. Everyone would know that he had porn. There would be advices, interventions, talks about leaving him. Funniest shit I ever saw. Dude he’s sexless, 20 years old and looks at porn, I would be more worried if he wasn’t.
Stomp the beta men and let the women run wild especially the attractive ones. What in the hell did they think would happen?
@ Gabe “Do women not deserve second chances? I agree with a lot that is shared at Dalrock but I also know that he is wrong on some things. Redemption covered my sins. Sex outside marriage is sinful for both man and woman. ”
Do you have scripture for your “Redemption covered my sins” ?
What about 3,4,5,6,7,8, 9, 10 ? What do think the consequences will be or the outcome of each and every intimate act outside of marriage ?
What did Jesus say to women caught in the act of adultery ? I’ll spare you the search ” go and sin no more”. How did David respond when he became aware ? Did he do it again or did he pay for it big time?
John, Christ, and the Apostles taught “repentance for the remission” of sins. Remission is much more than “forgiveness”. It is forgiveness, removal of guilt, and the ability / power to overcome (stop) to actually stop sinning. This is the New Testament Covenant. There is no total remission/forgiveness without total repentance. In short, it is the complete removal as seen the in the OT with the two goats – one was sacrificed and the other was let go outside of the camp.
For some odd reason it is quite popular to teach the Testament Covenant is just forgiveness. It is far far more. It is the preparation of a dwelling place for G_D in the Sprit among many other purposes. Take a look 2 Cor 6.
In order for this transformation to happen – one has to “show some class”. G_D will do His part if you do yours. To think or act otherwise would violate the laws of the universe regarding sowing and reaping.
One will reap exactly what they sow – nothing changes that – Nothing. Not grace, not redemption, not sanctification, pre-destination, or anything else. G_D means exactly what HE says. There are consequences for every single action. If a person repents then G_D will forgive and never mention it again. However, there are still consequences for that action.
Shalom
The husband at this point remains quite unsure of himself and no amount of convincing from his wife that she has got over that phase can satisfy him in order to put the whole matter to rest and move on.
———————————–
Should he realistically believe that he’s the best lover out of 20 or more men?
She was sleeping with a lot of men before him. He wasn’t on that list of partners, nor was it likely that anyone like him was on that list, and what does that mean about the type of man she is physically attracted to? What is she doing with him then?
Her calling it a ‘phase’ doesn’t answer the obvious and logical questions.
The OT has a really good example of a minor prophet taking on a “woman of harlotry” and her child.
The writings of Hosea.
One had better be seriously hearing from “G_D” and then “fleece” test it several times as Gideon did to make sure.
Shalom
@Michael Singer
There are consequences for every single action. If a person repents then G_D will forgive and never mention it again. However, there are still consequences for that action.
Yep. A measure of true repentance is the willingness to live with the temporal consequences of one’s sins. Forgiveness doesn’t restore the hymen, nor can it regenerate in an “experienced” woman the virgin’s capacity to bond to a man.
If guy is willing to marry up a former slut, then that’s on him. Cavet Emptor.
There are tons of men out there that just plain unattractive. The obesity problem didn’t just exclusively target females. When I go out and about in a suburb of a major city most of the men are physically unattractive with fat hanging out all over the place. They no style and they have beta male personalities. The only thing that they have going for them is a career and that’s means nothing to these women when they already have money and a career themselves.
If these dudes ever want to get laid, they will have wife one of these sluts up. There is no other way around this. Don’t tell me that they should just go their own way without sex. I don’t like it when people start shooting into crows in sexual frustrated rages i.e James Holmes.
Greyghost said:
“There is no such thing as a reformed slut in the worldly sense. You can repent and find your self in heaven but that repentance does no entitle you to live a safe and secure life as the wife of a christian man.”
Amen. There is forgiveness. But there is no obligation to men to marry females who f’d the football team or the equivalent of several football teams, christian or otherwise.
Dear Michael Singer,
Thank goodness you are not the only person on the internet!
I have millions of fans and the world’s leading scholars are studying me, as they studied James Joyce. J.R.R. Tolkien and Shakespeare also created words, so they would be quite fond of the term “Bernankified,” especially after going on a few dates with women who had been sodomized in secretly-taped buttcocking sessions lzozlzozo.
Why does the word “Bernankified” trouble you so, while you never criticize publishing houses regarding secretive tapers of butthext of someone’s future wife? What does that say of your moral character? Of your spiritual fiber? Why do you persecute the exalted GBFM and let the BErnakifieir buthexeters and secrteiv tapers of butthext and desosulers of women go free of criticism? Does ye not beleieve in the soul?
Michael, perhaps you can purchase one of the shirts or undies for your wife or girlfrend: http://cafepress.com/greatbooksformen
Here are some Cliffnotes for the “MichaelSinger” students who do not enjoy the primary texts:
http://eumaios.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/gbfm-code-the-symbology-and-terminology-of-great-books-for-men/
Neocon Butthex: symbology and terminology in the works of Great Books for Men
http://luciussomesuch.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/the-genius-of-great-books-for-men-greatbooksformen-gbfm-tm-gb4m-tm-gr8books4men-tm/
The Genius of Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM)
@FuriousFerret
Someday somebody will make a study about the correlation of the obesity epidemic and the insane American sexual market. I think they are closely related in more than one way.
Everytime I read these posts I ask myself “Is there no forgiveness in Christ?”
exactly what you should be asking — YOURSELF, not these guys
in fact, asking their forgiveness would be a good ‘baby step’ for you!
And please take note, when you tell me I am a slut because I was not smart in my youth, please know that you are calling a redeemed child of Christ a slut.
noted, that call was pre-authorized
you use “your” redemption — paid for by someone else — like a club, or badge of privilege . . . like a Protected Classes freebie card! lol
I cant imagine Christ takes kindly to someone calling His children names all the while patting the Brothers in Christ (or not) for not marrying and sleeping with those sluts.
you cant imagine it b/c youre outside Christ
futher displays of rebellion and a hem self righteousness arent likey to attract him
The commenter who ends every comment with “Shalom” remidns me of early days Obsidian when he used to end every one of his comments with “Salaam”
‘Someday somebody will make a study about the correlation of the obesity epidemic and the insane American sexual market. I think they are closely related in more than one way.’
Truth.
What’s so maddening about this is that’s is just so easy to be attractive when your a young woman.
Just stay thin. It’s so simple. Most women have at least a somewhat attractive face. That is their thing. They are physically attractive. While most are not model attractive they are attractive enough in terms of a having a pretty face.
Being thin is all that is needed to be pretty damn sexually attractive when you are under 30. But sadly this doesn’t happen.
I personally believe that it’s the carbs. Just from reading about the obesity epidemic and the paleo diet and the fact that shit hit the fan around the same time as they pushed ‘fat is bad’ diet. Carbs drives the hunger, hunger drives the carb craving/eating. The body is supposed to self regulate hunger just like every other mammal on planet earth. Why does a chimp not become obese and we do? Why do animals in the wild not overeat? And don’t mention fat house cats, we feed them a ton of carbs in their food which doesn’t occur in the wild.
@FuriousFerret – our food sources, appetites, choices, and self control have changed quite a bit over the last 5 decades.
Compare the BMI and weight charts from the 50’s moving forward.
Btw, at the other end of the health telescope – what can be accomplished is flat out astounding if one is disciplined enough.
Shalom
Yeah and what happened from the 50s moving on?
‘Fat is bad’ and Wheat/Grain/Carbs are good. Then stomachs suddenly started to expand.
It’s not a matter of simply discipline. When you eat crap, it serves the same purpose as smack does to a junkie, your body wants more crap. Your hormones are going crazy. If you are loading up on carbs, all the willpower in the world won’t do you any good.
You have to get off the crap, and eat meats and veggies only with no sugar/grain/wheat to get your hormones back to where they should be.
If these dudes ever want to get laid, they will have wife one of these sluts up. There is no other way around this. Don’t tell me that they should just go their own way without sex. I don’t like it when people start shooting into crows in sexual frustrated rages i.e James Holmes.
Divorced men go on firing sprees as well. That is no cure.
There are many cases of divorced men wiping out thier families and sometimes lawyers when things go bad. These stories just dont get as much media coverage becuase the death toll is usually under a half dozen, and family violence isn’t as sensational as random Sodini-like shootings.
When incels go on a rampage they tend to take more people with them then divorced guys, but these incidents are more sporadic and thus newsworthy.
Domestic violence in general and divorce related murder/suicides happens much much more frequently than omega rage, but those incidents are so common (and usually more limited) they don’t make front page news.
This is why I’m glad i found my girl, we both believe that once you’re married you can’t get out, and we’re both virgins, closest feminist thing she’s doing is getting her degree so she can open her own pre-school, she really loves kids.
You have to understand dalrock, feminism’s goal is to destroy marriage just like Satan wants to destroy God’s marriage to the Church, they think it’s oppressive even though women have been proven to be happier in traditional roled marriages
@Sue – Just a casual observation. The repercussions are much more far reaching of pre-marital sex than you indicated.
When the person marries and has children – the offspring will engage in the same behavior despite the best intentions of the parents. They simply dont have the insight / self control and in themselves let alone the ability to teach others. In addition, it places the parents in a place hypocritical position ” do as I say but not as I did”. Apples dont fall far from trees.
@ Furious Ferret – What happened in the 50’s moving forward ? Lots.
Just to name a few – artificial fertilizer, corn fed beef, genetically modified seed, genetically modified animals, high fructose corn syrup, introduction of fast food, TV, televised sports, increase in portion size, engineered food.
Combined with lack of exercise, increased weekly work load, increased stress, decreased manual labor, convenience stores loaded with empty calories, the government subsidizing corn growers.
The abundance of inexpensive / empty calorie food is overwhelming and tempting.
Yo Mike, You forgot add Shalom at the end. You’re slippin man.
Your right !!!! It is late at night and I am tired and carb depleted.
Here are 2 to make up for the forgotten one.
Shalom & Shalom
Once again, I bow to Dalrock. Excellent post, man. You finally found a metaphor people can’t argue with too much. It’s so spot on.
Carbs are like credit and partner count. One helping just creates desire for the next.
Problem with the analogy: young women can get carbs, credit and partners whenever they want.
Results are fairly predictable. Big waist, big waste, small waits.
@Cail
Did I win you over? I could have written most of your comments. Some battles are won after the swords have stopped ringing.
@Michael Singer.
You do not speak the Gospel. You know the lyrics, but the melody is all wrong.
@GBFM
Three years ago when I started reading Roissy, I never thought you and I would be on the same page.
@Dalrock
The last paragraph seems to confuse the matter…rather, it shows the complexity of it. Is the concern debased marriage (the first 5 paragraphs), or debased women (the last one)? These are related, but very different things. Debased women are troublesome, but if moneychanging/Game is a boon, then we must assume the problem is with the mint, not clippers.
I think you’re (unwittingly?) walking in what I’ve been smelling. You strode through mounds of cultural and legal marriage clipping shit, and then straight into a pile Stanton’s world, where we’re told every woman is born a quarter ounce of silver, but clipped at every turn by various forms of Alpha/Player. I suggest that both these piles are dropped by the same monster, and should be killed–wherever we find it–because the clippings are being re-used. I think it helps us if understand that clipping is not the only problem. There is purposeful alloying afoot, too.
Every woman (and man) is born impure. The moneychanger’s (Stantonian, Socialist, or Player) solution is sexual entropy–also called equality. Mix it all up, and trade the resulting pot metal for collections, power, or pleasure. This is sensible for the materialist; seemingly wise, even. The moneychanger knows the currency is not pure, but keeps the charade going like a good employee of Goldman Sachs; rebundling the clippings with the other currency, and sending it back out into circulation. There’s also a perverse incentive for the moneychanger to seek out impure currency, and encourage others to do so, as well. He’s trying to get something for nothing. It’s an act of desperation, or outright vengeance in the face uncertainty and fear. He knows it only works as long as we keep believing in the trade of bogus currency, so he has to play a game of touting both the value of the debased currency, and sell the secret of how to profit by it.
If our goal is pure silver, then the quick short-cuts of the moneychanger are not worth much. It’s easy to apply tremendous heat and dump in whatever is at hand; which ends up being clippings from the moneychanger himself, and from his past dealings.
Something that can be learned from the moneychangers are the tells of purity, but it’s not necessary as they can be found in old books, too. Silver, for example, is not attracted to magnets. When exposed to a magnetic field it generates an opposing field of pole-arity (heh). To reference a post of Ian Ironwood’s from (IIRC) last week: You’re not looking for the woman who is turned off by dancers at Chippendales. You want the woman who chooses not to go.
We purists need a refining process, which is much more involved (we need to know specific melting points for the metal we’re trying to preserve), and time-consuming. We also need the resolve to be satisfied with a smaller, but purer, sum. A ring of milling is good, too, but it’s very wise to start with as pure a currency as you can find. Sometimes, it’s better to just toss the coin out. Time, as they say, is money.
Lastly, it’s worth remembering that most of us come from the same cultural mint. The Five Nickel man who trades himself for a Quarter Wife may be shocked to discover that she has only 2.5 cents in value. Nevertheless, though the market price was grossly distorted on the surface, the exchange itself is often fair. The wisdom and courage content of nickels are often only worth .5 cents apiece. This, too, can be learned form old books.
In the final analysis we’re simply going to need more Silver. While Zippy Catholic is right about never getting the original image back on the coin, and while I’m also generally loathe to disagree with him because he’s way smarter than me, he’s ignoring the paradoxes of which God is so fond. Once we fully admit our impurities, and fully submit to the authority for deflation of the face value, that’s precisely the moment grace abounds, and only God knows what will happen then–though hymens are probably not on the list because He is after the heart, not the vagina. It’s not a matter of deciding to consult moneychangers because their advice works, or whether that advice is good. It’s about seeking the wisdom of the Person who invented not just coins, but silver itself. The materialist simply cannot see this.
One more thought: There’s only one reason to invest in (to marry) a woman: Because you love her, and because you want to love her–that is, do good for her. It’s not a rational decision from the Christian or materialist perspective; not in this era, not in any previous one, and not in any era to come.
It is interesting to note the posts by m and by gabrielle. They make some perfectly sound and reasoned points, which on their own are of interest, but, it is as if they failed to read the head essay. Perfect examples of women taking everything in a personal manner, when it is not about them. 😦
Marrying a woman because you love her is a stupid thing in this world. That is fantasy shit. You marry a worthy bitch that tingles for you.(women don’t have the capacity to love) If her physical appearance makes your dick hard and she has deeper characteristics that makes her worthy of a husband and fits in with your needs marry that one. Doesn’t make any difference there is no the one. Know female nature and “see” her for who she is in reality.
Maybe one day we can make it so “love” will be the guide. That requires a sane society with very strong character.
Only marry a woman if:
She is your physical type.
She wants you physically, badly.
She will keep house.
She is not a slut, by your definition.
She is your religion, if you have one.
She has a job, but not a “career”.
Excellent! Excellent! Only gripe is you should have used a $20 gold piece in your animation – that is, start with something that truly has value, as marriage once did.
I wonder how may Christian men bitching and complaing about the modern state of marriage can tag their lives with Thoughts from a happily married father on a post feminist world?
Frankly, as a bachelor who has never married (all marriage is dead today), never fathered bastards (all children are bastards today), and never manned up for any woman (all women are sluts today), I see a real problem of integrity with men who are married and complaining about marriage. Celebacy and sexual anarchy are the only true answers. I wonder if the great GBFM is married. Lzozozozoz.
Hey, Biblical marriage is dead, so let’s just chuck marriage altogether. So just man-up for the Lord, dump those sluts you call wives and were stupid enough to marry and … come out from among them (the married), and be ye separate (divorce), saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing (women); and I will receive you.
Come on! It’s for the Lord!
And if those wives you divorce take half of what you own, takes those bastards you call children, and leave you homeless and penniless, and if the church shuns you needless divorcing your wives, then Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
Hey, I’m just rolling with the cynical, hypocritical bitterness of married men complaing about marriage as if their own wives are somehow exempt for the slut shaming.
Because they are not.
Dear Cane,
Yes!
“@Michael Singer. You do not speak the Gospel. You know the lyrics, but the melody is all wrong.” Michael Singer reminds me of King A. Both are off-key whenever they quote a great book or the Bible, and it always rings untrue and hollow, like a blind man trying to lead an army into battle, pretending he can see the enemy, and asking everyone to trust him.
A fiat currency must, by its very nature, debauch all the women, alongside truth and beauty. Fiat money funded the deconstruction movement.
Here is an excellent article saying many of the same things that Dalrock was saying in the OP:
http://mises.org/daily/2221/Will-The-Federal-Reserve-Create-The-New-Socialist-Man
“Personal character and money are linked. No, we are not implying that a person of great wealth is necessarily an individual with high character. All one needs to do is look at the moral sewer known as Wall Street in order to comprehend how a whole host of elites have traded their souls for mind-boggling sums of money.
The linkage between character and money has everything to do with self-ownership. Aside from one’s body, the most personal property one may possess is the fruit of one’s labor. In a capitalist society, typically, this labor gets rewarded in the form of money — a paycheck. Hence, a person’s sense of value and self-worth is significantly influenced by how society values his labor — with money not only being that most personal asset, but also being the measuring rod. In days gone by, an individual developed character by learning that an honest day’s work would be rewarded with honest money (i.e., gold). Never has there been a more stable measure of value than gold.”
http://mises.org/daily/2221/Will-The-Federal-Reserve-Create-The-New-Socialist-Man
Paul Cantor describes this phenomenon in his provocative essay Hyperinflation and Hyperreality: Thomas Mann in Light of Austrian Economics. To wit:
“Inflation is that moment when as a result of government action the distinction between real money and fake money begins to dissolve. That is why inflation has such a corrosive effect on society. Money is one of the primary measures of value in any society, perhaps the primary one, the principal repository of value. As such, money is a central source of stability, continuity, and coherence in any community. Hence to tamper with the basic money supply is to tamper with a community’s sense of value. By making money worthless, inflation threatens to undermine and dissolve all sense of value in a society.”
GBFM has millions of fans and his work is studied like Shakespeare or Tolkien.
lzolzollzolzoollzolz
Anyway, great post, Dalrock. The debasing is occurring all across humanity. There’s no realm that is exempt.
Thanks for making my day that much more depressing.
Like so many Manosphere bloggers – amazing at pointing out the problem, yet no care given to the solution.
If Traditionalism isn’t the answer
And MGTOW isn’t the answer
And Church has been corrupted by Feminism, moral relativisim, and Churchanity
And PUA isn’t the answer
Remind me again, “How then should we live?”
@greyghost
Who said anything about “the one”? There never has been and never will be a world where marriage is a good calculated risk, compared to not marrying.
David Collard’s advice above is a good basic checklist, but even if she meets all those requirements it’s still a bad idea to marry if you don’t “burn with passion” for her; if you don’t love her. The reward isn’t worth the investment.
I have gone out on dates with a number of “Christian” women lately. You can not believe how many admit to have liked the “bad boys” at one time but are no longer like that. There is no sign of shame or repentance in their tone of voices. Of course they all admit that the “bad’ boys” weren’t good for them and that they paid a price. Yet, the way they talked sounded no different than saying I no longer eat spicy food.
I am just disgusted by this and refuse to be with such women. I just don’t trust them. If it means I still single for the rest of my life, then so be it.
AJ:
“Reformed slut” does not mean reformed slut.
@Cane “You do not speak the Gospel. You know the lyrics, but the melody is all wrong.”
Your reply is a ad hominem therefore ex-facie.
Attack the argument – not the person.
Shalom
@Gabrielle
“Vengence is mine says God. Be mindful what you say in your self rightousness!”
You know, its amusing to see people use this to call out for God’s wrath when the scripture for this clearly tells the Christian to not spend any time thinking of vengeance or retribution because God sorts everything out the way it is supposed to. Instead, the Christian (reformed slut or not) is to answer evil with Good.
Ironic that she would prove her point that a slut can be redeemed and sanctified by acting the way the Bible tells her to, instead she proves the opposite by acting as she does (with the added layer of irony of being self righteous and calling out someone else for it)
@Lib Arts
Paul answers it this way:
To desire to live on earth, without work or suffering, is to be disappointed.
Paul wrote this to a church, but the family is a church, as well. If we desire to be married then we should keep in mind that this is the position that we put ourselves. So much for the grandness of ancient patriarchy.
In Corinthians 9, Paul says it this way:
Did you see that? When he starts off, it seems like Paul is advocating that we become like the people we want to save. Then the second paragraph removes the mist of “niceness”, and we see that we should live with others to strive against them in competition, but for their glory, our glory, and Christ’s glory. It’s a picture of a great contest wherein the stakes, the vigor of the contestants, and the ferocity of the contest itself, elevates the whole sport to a worthy place.
Boxing or MMA isn’t great when one man beats on another unanswered, but when two contestants go at it, with gusto–and heart. Happy warriors are what we need. If you find yourself outgunned by churches, PUAs, and the law, then the answer is clear: Hurry to meet glorious death. Every day is a good day to die.
Again: the materialist cannot see this. He loves the world.
Gabrielle:
Forgiveness and redemption do not mean absolution or relief from temporal consequences.
Forgiveness and reformation do not entitle the slut to a husband or children — only that she might get a chance at having those things.
Forgiveness and reformation do not entitle the slut not to have her past conduct evaluated in light of all other circumstances to determine whether she is suitable marriage material.
Forgiveness does not mean the slut is free to conceal or shade the truth about her N.
Forgiveness does not mean the past is erased.
@Michael Singer
You want to be treated like a man, but I cannot know where to begin to correct the man who babbles like a deranged child; even when he spits out discombobulated scripture, Satan-like.
We don’t argue with rebellious children, fools, or demons. We simply cast them out for destruction–ad hominem.
I read this post and then a bit later got a mail note for a local meet up group I belong to. In the margins it had other meet up groups that I might be interested in. One of them was for a Christian Singles group in an exceedingly large Christian Church in my area. Probably 4,000 to 5,000 members. Don’t know why it offered this to me. I had to guess it related to my zip code.
After reading this post I was curious so just for kicks I thought I would check out the members of this Christian singles group. We have all read the posts here on how these churches are filled with beta knuckleheads and entitled women, but I was not prepared for actual proof.
I would estimate that forty percent of the group was single mothers who were looking to meet someone. The rest were single older women. I didn’t really see any mid twenties or younger women as members. These single mothers were very upfront about meeting “a good man” or “a good Christian”.
But the parade of male members just made me cringe. I didn’t spend a lot of time looking, but what I did see was a bunch of guys supplicating like crazy.
It wasn’t pretty.
@Michael Singer, @Gabrielle
The problem is not that there is no room for repentance, the problem is that some things, when broken, cannot be fixed on this Earth or in this life. There is a problem with bonding which has been likened to using adhesive tape time and again, and the stickiness gets less each time. So too with sexual partners.
The other issue that you both seem not have taken heed of is that there are many who claim to be reformed and to have repented of their past sins who have never repented at all: it is just an act because they know that with marriage and divorce, they win cash and prizes. How can you tell whether a person really has repented or is simply hiding their true nature until such time as they have their partner sold on marriage?
The website No Ma’am looks at this whole set up from the viewpoint of whether women should have the right to marry at http://no-maam.blogspot.co.uk/2008/02/questionators-should-women-have-right.html and comes up with the answer no, because there is no need for divorce when the marriage itself is a fraud on the man, based on an economic view of what is traded in a marriage.
Somebody, and I cannot remember who asked if there was any way to guarantee that a marriage would work. While there is absolutely no guarantee, because there is always the exception that proves the rule, an organisation called Marriage Savers (www.marriagesavers.org) claims to be able to drastically reduce the number of divorces if people follow its principles, which include extensive pre-marital counselling, which they believe is not being carried out effectively unless more than 10% of the couples decide not to marry, and the cessation of any cohabitation that is occurring, amongst other things. I have not seen third party divorce statistics quoted for what they do broken down to a level where it would be meaningful but the statistics that they themselves quote are encouraging, and more like a fifth of the 38% that Stanton seems to think is good. The one point that Marriage Savers makes that is worth mentioning here is that the churches do not actually support biblical marriage but I think we all know that anyway.
@Deti
Gabrielle’s problem isn’t that forgiveness won’t do work upon her, but that she rejects that repentance and submitting to judgment comes before forgiveness, and that all things in this world work in time.
I gather that you have experience with this, but are still coming to terms with it yourself.
Ras Al Ghul’s comment is spot-on. Gabrielle demands mercy, and therefore makes it impossible. Dogs will eat the flesh of such as her if she does not repent…or at least shut up so they can’t track her sound.
Yes Cane Caldo!
“Cane Caldo says:
October 8, 2012 at 11:25 am
@Michael Singer
Attack the argument – not the person.
You want to be treated like a man, but I cannot know where to begin to correct the man who babbles like a deranged child; even when he spits out discombobulated scripture, Satan-like.
We don’t argue with rebellious children, fools, or demons. We simply cast them out for destruction–ad hominem.”
The Michael Singer’s of the world are the false prophets Jesus warned us of–the false Scribes and Pharisees. They are very quick to pass judgment on grammar or spelling that is different, while giving a free pass of copius amounts of corruption, debauchery, debasement, and butthext.
Thus, the scripture, in their hands, becomes a soulless pedant’s sledgehammer. Robbed of its beautiful soul, they dress it up and adorn it in the “proper” language while donning a “holier-than-thou” robe, and seeketh to persecute and destroy the living moral prophet, while giving a free pass to all the immoral debauchers, debasers, and buttcocking buttcockerz, even going so far as to smile upon secrteive tpaingz of butthext which desoul our women and potential wives. Just look what the Scribes and Pharisees did to Jesus.
@MackPUA
GBFM is drawing a parallel between what the federal reserve is doing to our money and what our culture (under the control of the federal reserve and its derivative control mechanisms) is doing to our women. At the end of the day, he is all about getting back to God and his commandments. That won’t happen as long as the federal reserve exists. The love of money is the root of all evil. They debase the currency and it takes more money to buy stuff. They more it takes to buy stuff, they more of it you want. Thus you want more, you slowly start to turn it into your god, and more evil is created. GBFM is operating on a level far above a PUA. A PUA is concerned with what is best for themselves in the short term. GBFM is concerned with what is best for everyone in the long term. Ignore him at your own peril.
@Michael
Butthex is just a generic term for prostituting oneself for both money or simply for feelings of closeness. And the reason he brings up the federal reserve so often interchangably with women being butthexed is because the bankers are currently “soft rocking” the church into a money loving induced orgasm of evil. The reason all pagan symbols are also sex symbols is because the same principles you use to make someone love you for sodomizing them are the same principles you use to bring a nation to it’s knees through monetary policy.
I highly recommend you read the series A Song of Ice and Fire and especially pay attention to Littlefinger. He is the real evil character in that book and he embodies this approach. Littlefinger = butthex. He runs brothels as his business ventures, but rises to the height of political power with the same techniques. You can either deny or enjoy your butthexed Bernakification, but it’s being done to you whether you like it or not.
@Cane “We simply cast them out for destruction–ad hominem.”
Thank you – your remark supports Matt 10:24 & Luke 11:19.
I dont like to argue theology with American evangelical “Christians” – it goes nowhere.
Any disagreement that goes the way of a ad hominem is exactly what “ecclesiastical leaders” use. They used “ad hominems” to persecute and kill the prophets, John, Christ, and the Apostles in the name heresy & blasphemy.
It is clearly demonstrated for one person to be right and everybody else wrong.This is seen in his writings over the course of his life.
Acts 26 Suddenly, Festus shouted, “Paul, you are insane. Too much study has made you crazy!”
Paul proved everybody was wrong – the other apostles, financial, political,educational, and religious leaders – everybody.
Shalom
Firends, Countrymen, Romans, and MArk Singer!!
Lend me your earss!! DA GBFM has come up wih the solution to the moral morass!!
THE BILL OF MENZ RIGHTS!!!!
lzozllzllzl every man shall have the right to
1) a womenz who hasth been butthexed less than 4 times
2) said 4 times not being done in the same night nor two consecutive nights niether lzozlzl
3) said butthexing events not being secretly taped without her conthent
4) no woman shall have a right to her husbands assetts if he comes home and finds her banging the poolboy ontop of his ps3 controller, thusly damaging said controller lzozl that would suck
5) wehnu ask a women how many poeple she has been with it wil be law that she will have to verbally multiply her anser by 10, and then add at least half the ass cocking sesssions which still count as sexth in certain religions lzozlzlzl
6) no man shall be made to fund a pussy that it out banging biker drummer cock, nor shall any man be made to pay for past use of a pussy lzozlzlzlz
i think that if we can pass this men’;s bill of rights into law, 90% of marriages will last lzozl.zlzlzlzlzl lzozllz which is why the butthex congreth and fiat masters will rail against my sublime logic reason phsilophy and religion lzozlzlzzl
What really baffles me about this post is the lack of intelligence in some of the posters. For example, Cail Corishev wrote:
The risk will never be zero — it never was — but surely it can be brought down to acceptable levels with some preparation and discipline, for the majority of guys who want it.
Ask the people surrounding the city of Chernobyl what they think about acceptable risk…while feminism may not be lethal, it does have acute damage just like radition poisoning.
Another example is Gabrielle who said:
“Is there no forgiveness in Christ?”
Christ forgave the adulterous woman and told her to go forth and sin no more. Given the calibeur of people that existed in Christ’s time, I’m pretty sure it’s safe to assume that woman went forth and sinned no more. Unfortuantely, women of today are not like that. They go forth and continue in sin. No guy in his right mind wants a “dump truck” lover.
Men, Good Men, didn’t debase marriage. Women and feminism did that. For those of us that have escaped the Matrix, we see clearly now the true intent of ALL women. For those of our brothers who have not yet delved into Red Pill wisdom, we will fight the good fight to show them the dark reality that truly awaits them.
@Michael Singer
Michael, you’re not Paul.
Gabrielle said, “Everytime I read these posts I ask myself “Is there no forgiveness in Christ?” Because I don’t see it on this blog. Did Joseph not marry Mary who was with child? Do women not deserve second chances?”
Okay, let’s break it down….
1) Gabrielle equates her own fornication with Mary’s pregnancy. That is both blasphemous and egregiously self-righteous. What exactly does Gabrielle believe about Mary’s pregnancy? Does Gabrielle deny the virgin birth?
2) Mary required no forgiveness for being pregnant because she committed no sin in becoming pregnant.
3) Joseph was prepared to put Mary away “privily” (secretly) until he was specifically told not to do so by an angel, who explained the circumstances of Mary’s pregnancy to him. At this point Joseph agreed to go forward with the marriage. Please note that Joseph was still described as a “righteous man” when he was planning to put Mary away. Thus the righteous act would be to put a woman away when she is discovered to have committed fornication.
4) Does Gabrielle believe her cuckolded husband is in the same situation as Joseph? Once again, this is both blasphemous and self-righteous.
Gabrielle’s equation of her own sin with Mary’s divinely appointed mission to carry the Christ demonstrates why most women are unqualified to make any statements whatsoever about the contents of the Bible or Biblical morality. Hence Paul’s admonition that the women should keep silent in the assembly and that they may not teach over a man.
Gabrielle is both a blasphemer and a heretic. In trying to justify her previous sins she has stumbled into worse sins. See her example and beware.
@UK Fred.
You are correct. However, let me point out you are using ad hominem.
Btw, Antipas wasn’t Paul.
He was Antipas and duly noted as such ” in the days of Antipas my faithful witness, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.”
Antipas is a worthwhile study.
Btw, his name means “against all”.
Shalom
You can not believe how many admit to have liked the “bad boys” at one time but are no longer like that. There is no sign of shame or repentance in their tone of voices
Avoid at all costs. They have been ruined forever. Five minutes of alpha can never be overcome. They will always pine for those minutes and everything else will come up short, especially you.
Why does society allow this damage to happen?
Dear Michael Singer,
Why do you come here and persecute the good folks on this blog, with little twists, and turns, pokes, prods, ad hominem attacks which you claim are non-ad-hominem, and contortions, splitting hairs and playing word-games, wasting everyone’s time
while you yet let
all the butthexters and debauchers and debasers
ride free?
What exactly is driving ye?
@Cane Caldo
for you to use that passage and somehow interpret that it debunks “patriarchy” is disgusting and inaccurate. The same man whom God used to write those words was also used by God to establish male authority in a family time and time again. Additionally, you used a poor translation to cite those verses.
I appreciate that your attempts to speculate truth are sincere, but you really pulled some bullshit out of your hat on that one. Convoluted, inaccurate, and absurd. I could debunk you a thousand ways, but I don’t have the time, and you wouldn’t listen anyway- but I don’t really have to. You damn near de-bunked yourself with following statements.
I would discredit you, lest others subscribe to your incomplete and poorly-checked theories, but you discredit yourself nicely. Few others here talk out of your ass as skillfully as you.
You should change your name to Ace Ventura.
More interesting news this AM, from the UK:
Marriage no longer a key goal for girls, survey suggests
@Samuel Solomon
You misunderstood what I wrote.
Patriarchy IS good. And not only is it good, but it is righteous, and so powerful as to be unavoidable. I wasn’t saying that patriarchy is bad, but that even the earlier attempts at patriarchy were flawed. If this were not true, then Paul would not have had to instruct and correct them in what to do. Do you follow? Looking back at them can be instructive, but it is worse than foolish to try to wish our times were different: it is useless.
Said another way:
That would be the protection of real, non-debased, money. Take the wealth of wisdom, but leave the debased and dead nostalgia to the dead people of those times. It is no good to us.
The survey indicates that in 2012 girls are more likely to define success as being confident and independent (56%)
Yes, but do they have any real skills, other than “exist in a bureaucracy”?
Or spout off postmodern dribble?
Or affirm themselves with “You go grllll”?
The feminist two step
1. Debase women into sluts
2. Debase marriage into slavery
@Cane -The reason Paul wrote what he did was because there was a introduction of “Gentiles” into Judaism. This was completely new and not even understood by Peter despite his vision and interaction and confirmation with Cornelius.
This is clearly seen in 1 Cor 5 with the case of incest among many other scriptures.
Paul was in full support of patriarchy to the nth degree.
This is clearly seen in Eph & Gal and supported by Peter in 1 Peter 3.
Shalom
^^^ yes farmboy!!
“The feminist two step
1. Debase women into sluts
2. Debase marriage into slavery”
Central planks of the communist manifesto include the destruction of the family and the establishment of central banks.
The central fiat bankers promote the butthexting and desouling of our women, so that our women no longer work for god and the family, but for the corporate state central bankers.
Once butthexted and deosuled in a secretly taped buttcocking session, women follow their commanders in 1) transferring a man’s assetts to the stae and 2) placing his children in state-controlled daycare when not aborting them, where they are drugged up and dumbed down, while also being desouled.
@GB4M: “Our Paychecks, Ourselves” – the title of a chapter in Daniel Amneus’s book Garbage Generation.
————–
WRT the original topic… it isn’t that women/marriage have been clipped like a coin, because at least there could still arguably be some amount of positive asset there if you can point to (what’s left of) some coin.
The situation now is that women/marriage are a distinct liability. Hence the discussion above about risk. Once the coin is clipped down to almost nothing, you’re still not into negative value, which is where women/marriage are now.
As a possibly obtuse connection, it’s interesting that there is no zero in Roman numerals. And until that was later invented there was of course also no such concept as “less than zero”, i.e., negative numbers came even later.
Marriage is the only game where the trapped animal has to buy the license. – Dan Poynter
Dear Michael Singer,
You seem to know a lot about Paul, and you seem to like him.
Was Paul for against secretly taped butthexting sessions for fun and profit? Are you forl for against secretly taped butthexting sessions for fun and profit?
Was Paul for or against stealing from the middle class and poor with a fiat currency?
Are you for or against stealing from the middle class and poor with a fiat currency?
@Michael Singer
You have the way of the world about you, which is condemnation. Everywhere you go you spread hate, and call it love. The law was made to subdue the world, not men; but you have fallen in love with the rope of law, and would see no one loosed. Not content to merely tie up improper desires with the law until they are tamed, you would see us hanged by it.
Finally: The two-edged sword is the ad-hominem attack of all ad-hominem attacks. It cleaves the rope of law–that pathetic armor and straitjacket of knowledge–from the man, and pierces his heart; killing him, that he might be reborn. This also frees the rope of law to be set back to its intended purpose.
@Cane – “Hurry to meet glorious death”
Understood. I’ll make sure to mention you in my suicide note once I’ve grown tired of fending off the daily bouts of hopelessness and regret.
@Cane
“We don’t argue with rebellious children, fools, or demons. We simply cast them out for destruction–ad hominem.”
You don’t actually DO anything. You rant and rave. You point at your Bible, but your mastery of it is lacking in even the most basic respects. Example:
“One more thought: There’s only one reason to invest in (to marry) a woman: Because you love her, and because you want to love her–that is, do good for her. ”
I will send you now to 1 Corinthians 7.
Paul clearly states there is only one reason to marry, if you cannot control your passions. Else it is better not to marry. Love has nothing to do with it. Love is a decision that one makes and actions that one takes, not a feeling. For this obvious lack of knowledge of scripture, and your continued desire to preach to everyone is sight with your obivously lacking righteous indignation, I consider you a false teacher.
About the only topic you get right is repentance. I expect to see you in heaven, but I’m not expecting much else beyond that.
@Cane – “The law was made to subdue the world, ”
Scripture & verse for that ?
Here are some verses of Rom 7:
What shall we say, then?Is the law sinful? Certainly not!
So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.
Sheath your sword – your cutting only yourself.
Shalom
There has been in my opinion, a slow and steady degradation of the commentary on this blog in the last few days/weeks. It seems a lot of time is spent arguing over terminology, attacks that go back and forth, and so on. This particular post for example has drawn little in the way of discussion about the content of the post itself and much commentary about tangential issues (tangential as related to the original post that is). It becomes at times so much self-righteous preening with each trying to one-up the other whilst seeking to impress using either overly complex arguments, or dense nonsensical ones dressed up in overloaded words, and a surfeit of poor (and simplistic) theologizing.
Vigorous discussion and refinement of ideas is enjoyable. Petty disputes and arguments not so much.
@Cane
“You have the way of the world about you, which is condemnation. ”
You have seriously got to look in the damn mirror man. You are master of seeing others sins and ignoring your own. You are the most condemning individual I have ever had the circumstance to read.
@tbc
“It seems a lot of time is spent arguing over terminology, attacks that go back and forth, and so on.”
That is all Cane is good for. I agree that Dalrock has come up with an exceptional typology for the modern women and how she devalues herself with borderline feral hypergamous cravings. I will attempt to get this into a sermon at my church. It’s going to take a while to slow this boat down to change directions.
@Michael Singer and Samuel Solomon
Last time for today:
So am I. Paul didn’t support patriarchy because it is right, but because it is the way God intended. Man cannot straighten what God has made crooked, and we can’t see back past the bend in the road behind us, so we should not try to imitate the patriarchy of the past. We must move forward towards the eternal patriarchy in front of us. That good patriarchy is hidden around another bend, yes, so–as was recently asked–how now shall we live?
We walk in faith, collecting the wealth of wisdom, but leaving the dead behind. There is no key. There is no alchemy by the philosopher’s stone of law, Game, or history. There is only refinement by fire. You will be tested; so work out, eat well, adorn yourselves as is fitting, hide His Word in your heart, encourage one another, and pray always. The fearful and awesome patriarchy is walking towards us, too, and will have his due. We should not be found empty-handed, improperly dressed, slothful, filthy, or deceitful.
“It seems a lot of time is spent arguing over terminology, attacks that go back and forth, and so on.”
Yes indeed, we should be arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. While the world burns, these types of issues can be very important
Gabrielle is both a blasphemer and a heretic. In trying to justify her previous sins she has stumbled into worse sins. See her example and beware.
Not only this. After telling that we shouldn’t judge her because she is a slut, she is judging us and speaking to us as if she held the high moral ground. She is talking to us with self-righteousness. WTF???!!!
You know that Christianity is in decadence when not only does a slut repent, but she feels herself morally superior to other people and starts preaching on them and casting condemnations as if she were an Old Testament prophet..
About Gabrielle comparing herself with the Mother of God, I don’t feel like talking. This raised my temperature to 1000 degrees.
Gabrielle, you are a slut and a despicable person. And let the Virgin Mary alone.
Let the boat speed up. Up anchor, all hands to oars, let’s run this thing a ground and see if the debasing can continue.
Who is tired of fighting an uphill battle against insurmountable odds? Straining against the overwhelming force of an entire population hell bent of dragging all honor down to muck? Let them. Allow it. Stop trying. Let go. Let everyone sow exactly what they have been reaping. Bask in the warmth of the suffering that is yet to come, and when it does luxuriate in the righteousness of the pain that we deserve, need, and must experience.
“There are none righteous, no, not one.” ROM 3:10
“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” ROM 3:23
“But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags” ISA 64:6
“For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” JAM 2:10
We all deserve all of this. Stop trying to save those who won’t appreciate the effort.
@Dalrock
Perhaps we could move to using economic principles to helping us rebuild young women. If the comparison of women devaluing themselves holds true with what is happening with our money supply, then perhaps the methods of recovering from a monetary devaluation could also be used to rebuild the value of women themselves.
In order to control an economy, you have to first have control of the means of production for the money. In fiat terms, you have to have control of the printing press, like the federal reserve has.
So for that to occur, we have to have control of the printing presses of women, their mothers. As this is not a realistic possibility, the only other option is for us to allow the “market” to correct itself. Things return to their intrinsic value in true capitalism. Like what GBFM is saying, feminism has been artificially inflating the value of women through a process very similar to Quantitative Easing. Women devalue themselves in the SMP and feminism steps in to buy up the debt and artificially inflate women with “self-esteem”. Eventually, we reach a period of hyper-inflation and feminism can’t compensate anymore. The market for women will crash in a marriage “strike”. It will be ugly, but without a level of control in political circles, this is all just economics.
@Joseph
That’s what I meant by love. English has definitions for love; you picked the wrong one. You obviously didn’t see this comment above: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/10/06/debasing-marriage/#comment-59256
My “condemnation” is no such thing. It carries no penalty, and I do not wish for anyone to be harmed, but saved. I throw no one to the foot of justice, nor turn over anyone to the jailers. That is condemnation.
And, with that, I’m out.
Eventually, we reach a period of hyper-inflation and feminism can’t compensate anymore.
It really has not been feminism that has been compensating, but the government. Up next : taxes must be raised, men must pay!
We all deserve all of this.
I don’t deserve it. Lots of others do not also. But we are stuck with it.
@Cane
I’m afraid you are the one with the incorrect idea of love. Burning with passion isn’t love. Love is clearly delineated in 1 Corinthians 13 and base passions are not mentioned.
Thank goodness!
“I don’t deserve it. Lots of others do not also. But we are stuck with it.”
We are sinners. We deserve death. This is a human problem originating in sin. We cannot solve it with more sin. We are suffering from the sin of the Babyboomer generation who have spent their entire lives forcing others to provide for their wants at all costs. They spent money they didn’t have. Built and empire they couldn’t afford. Designed a welfare system that requires future generations to pay while simultaneously killing off the next generation through abortions. Their selfishness has known no bounds. It is up to us to fix this crap and the only hope we have is Jesus. His blessing alone can heal this land, and the only way to get his blessing is by being righteous.
Notice that the Quarter being debased above says “In God We Trust”. Seems not to be the case, as biblical inspired marriage is thrown in the dumpster. Excellent symbolism, Dalrock.
@farm boy
I guess Sexual Market Place is a very apt analogy after all.
Is this the Gabrielle who used to be known as Paige? Someone pointed that out to me not long ago.
tbc said:
“There has been in my opinion, a slow and steady degradation of the commentary on this blog in the last few days/weeks. It seems a lot of time is spent arguing over terminology, attacks that go back and forth, and so on.”
Well said tbc. Some of us would like to see the actual writeup discussed and not the scripture-based insult slinging. In other words, would it be too much to ask those who come here and engage in that behavior to start their own blogs and not hijack this one?
Dalrock, you’re losing control over your blog, pal. I would dare suggest that most of us don’t enjoy reading of the scripture-flinging crap by wannabe theologians looking to demonstrate their spiritual, moral and theological superiority over others.
Please consider banning the chronic Bible-baiters. It ruins what otherwise would be enjoyable discussion of very interesting topics like the one above.
I was going to comment to each of you but please forgive me, I can not. I do not wish to share more about myself when I really do not think it would add to the conversation.
I have sought forgiveness in my Saviour. I do know what wickedness I did in my past. I do know that I need to help be the change that you men speak of regarding women. I am doing this by reading, learning and growing in Christ. I do this by being a faithful and loving wife to my husband. I do this by raising my daughters to be Christ loving women who honor and respect their husbands but also raising my sons to be men who stand up for what is good in God’s Word. I have sorrowed and repented over what I have done to my life. You all are right that I do not deserve what a virgin woman deserves. I do know though that what the Devil meant for evil, God used for good in my life. The Holy Spirit has told me this.
I do not think I am as Mary. I do know that I am Chriist’s though.
I leave you Brothers in Peace. May the LORD bless and keep you.
Gabrielle
Gabrielle wrote:
Very well said, Gabrielle. While you will find few who are sympathetic to your story among this audience, I encourage you to stick around and to bravely continue bearing witness to the salvation of Christ.
Dalrock and the gathered mass of frustrated beta males here feel it necessary to treat real-life individuals like you as a cog in their theories. They are afraid that recognizing your redemption will nullify their crusader work, which I must make very clear, is vital and even existentially important work. Yet, in fighting monsters they do not “take care [they] not become monsters.” They mouth the words of salvation and, in the abstract, acknowledge its possibility but without celebrating it in their midst, in your living example.
What is actual the state of your soul? Who knows. Above my pay grade. But it is instructive that — assuming your redemption is real — their schema has little or no place for you. Not only do they fatally disregard your role in the culture’s redemption, they should go the extra step and reserve the highest place for you! But no. Far easier to say: Once a slut, always a slut. Once a sinner, always a sinner.
At the same time, their zeal is admirable because the time is clearly out of joint. They are redressing an imbalance, and it is no great crime to err on the side of overcorrection.
And yet, they will soon have to think larger and more courageously. If any real recovery of sexual sanity is to happen, there must be made a place for women like you who “once was lost but now am found….” We must not be afraid to consort with the prostitutes and publicans, thieves and centurions.
I do not accuse anyone specifically of Pharisaical hardness-of-heart, least of all the host of the site. I would not presume to. But I do note that the scent is in the air, and the temptations to vengeance are part of the common currency here. (E.g., that scandalized, small-souled curmudgeon Mark Minter who is bleeding all over the place lately of self-laceration, a prime partisan of despair with a stone in his hand.) It is entirely too easy to imagine the scales will be righted as long as we can be the instrument of revenge on reformed sluts like you.
These one-track minded partisans — in the face of all their spitting urges for revenge — cannot look upon your redemption as the awesome grace of God. Accounts must be settled! Prices must be paid!
Salvation. It’s so unfair!
Yes, it is. THUS SAYS THE LORD. Non serviam?
Amid all this frustration the Christian virtue of hope is mothballed. And amid the hopelessness rises the self-fulfilling maelstrom of despair. While howling at the injustice of this fallen realm, the downtrodden beta males band together, reinforce their outrage, and elevate it to a rival virtue. What they don’t understand is their fixation on justice destroys their faith in the ultimate victory of Christ. Their howl is Psalm 13: “How long, O LORD? Wilt thou forget me for ever? / How long wilt thou hide thy face from me?” Indeed, it seems like “for ever,” and so we are tempted by the sin of faithlessness to say: Vengeance is NOT Yours. You will NOT repay. So I must do it! And it is a manly thing, indeed, to rebel. We feel the fire in our blood, the righteous thirst for justice. Surely this is of God!
But the temptations to hate you and condemn you and stone you most certainly are not of God. They are the devil at his most subtle. For the father of lies will take that righteous manliness and nudge it toward wicked ends. Once we give up the hope that mercy and justice can be reconciled — that the Lord God Almighty’s mercy is universes larger than our petty indignations — we necessarily find ourselves attempting to balance the scales alone in a godless world. We take it upon ourselves to accuse, condemn, and punish you, Gabrielle, though we do not know the first thing about you.
In this way, a thirst for righteousness mutates into unholy anxiety. If the Christian man is not serene with the hope that all accounts will be balanced, which is a hope that is indistinguishable from a certainty, then he will direct his life in a radically different way than those of us who insist upon all three Christian virtues. He will find the pull of evil irresistible, calling it “justice” all the way down to hell. If we believe in the Lord of Justice, whence comes the fear he will not make good on his promise?
What say you, men? Will you follow Christ, or “go your own way”?
There is another way. It is the way of the Cross, yes, a way of pain and sacrifice. But it is also the necessary journey to the resurrection. “But … if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. … If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.”
We are fools for Christ. We need little reminding of our folly in places like these, populated by the men who have already given themselves over to despair — which they call “poolside.” If the world is fated to be damned, why not contribute to the ruination? If the world is fated to be damned, every effort to save it is folly. Such is the self-fulfilling prophesy of hope. Without it, up front, and by the grace of God, all of our efforts are made, somewhere in the nagging back of our mind, “in vain.” And beating that slut Gabrielle to death becomes as righteous as forgiving her, for nothing is righteous.
Matt
Cane,
I did not mean to insult by speaking of Mary. I meant to show that God has a plan even when others don’t understand it. My life is a perfect example of grace and forgiveness.
May the peace of God be with you.
@Matt
“they should go the extra step and reserve the highest place for you!”
This is where you are incorrect Matt. We offer all women this place in our society now and you see how they devalue themselves with that position. What you just described is pedestalization and it is a central tenet of female hypergamy that she will rebel against anyone that pedestalizes her. We recognize and even celebrate her coming to Christ, but Christ alone should be held in the highest place with everyone else at a distant second to Him. That is the entire point of this blog.
Testing
[D: I’m not sure why but askimet flagged this as spam. I checked and you aren’t on my blacklist. This seems to happen somewhat randomly, but I do check the bin and fish these out eventually.]
Why the hell does everything have to evolve into Christanese?
Look, women are going to slut it up in today’s culture. It is too tempting. The ONLY reason men (even Christian) aren’t screwing every HB 10 that they see is that they can’t. They simply don’t have the ability to have sex with various amounts of women whereas the woman can.
You can’t ask people to wait until they have in their mid 20s to have sex. It’s like bargaining with the sun to never come out. The ones that can hold out are usually socially inept through brainwashing or simply very unattractive.
Also, where are all these attractive virgins going to come from? If that is the only acceptable wife, the competition would be so fierce, I doubt any man here would come out the victor.
If she was a slut in her former days, it’s up to you decide the risk. Caveat Emptor pal. Whatever happened to a pre-nup anyways. If you know she was a slut and she’s your best option then have her sign an ironclad pre-nup that includes that the children go to the father if she initiates divorce.
Gabrielle, while being dosed in the gag inducing sacchrine drenched Christianese speak does seem geninue in her turn from sluthood. Jesus himself forgave the very same thing in the adulterous woman.
At the end of the day, there are not enough non-sluts to go around. That’s the marketplace and people are going to have to deal with it. Unattractive beta males are going to end up shooting up movie theatres without pussy, they need these sluts. The best thing you can do is spread the red pill to men so they know the score.
Gabrielle,
Your are forgiven by the Divine and will always be, for all transgressions, past, present and future. The frustrations voiced by men here and in other places comes from what many men have gone through by trying to follow the ideals of respect, chastity and moderation, only to be rejected in their youth by promiscuous women who showed no regard and placed no value for the character these men lived by. Later on, these same used-up women or their kind show up once their once-attractive looks fad and try to shame or ‘guilt’ men into marrying them because they’ve ‘changed their ways’.
That particular argument isn’t with you, it is with the idea that men ‘owe’ women with this mentality a lifelong devotion. We men don’t owe such women even a second glance, let alone unending devotion. If a man chooses to enter relationship under those circumstances, then it’s best wishes to he and his wife. But it’s not our obligation to do so just because they’re ‘christian’.
I wish you the very best in raising your children and I commend you for seeking out a better way to live.
The survey indicates that in 2012 girls are more likely to define success as being confident and independent (56%)
One of the key signs to look for in any bubble – stock, land, metal, chain letters, houses, anything – is the level of participation. When “everyone knows” it’s a good deal, watch out. As another poster asked above, what do these girls / young women know how to do (confidently, surely) that people will be willing to pay for?
I’m reminded of the Dutch art policy of years ago, where the government proposed to support art by storing the various works of art created by citizens. Following Sturgeon’s Law, 90% or more of it was just junk that no one would want to ever look at. The storage problem continued to grow, as more and more citizens wished to take advantage of it. I have no idea when the program ended, or if it has ended yet, but it either has or will end. Because resources are finite, even in the modern world.
“Confident and independent” – I’ve seen some of these modern English women. Dean Wormer, that is your cue….
May God bless and keep you Matt King. Your words encouraged me greatly. I do not think I can stay and fight the good fight here at Dalrock. I will leave that to good men like yourself. Thank you for encouraging a Sister in Christ.
Gabrielle
When people become a Christian do they really have to phrase everything in Christanese? I find this annoying as all hell. Whenever I meet someone that talks like this I assume the worst.
May he that reigns over all give the wisdom to chosen few to speak like normal people sometimes. Amen.
Excellent analogy Dalrock!
I sit back in my chair and chuckle at the sheep. At least some of the married guys Understand +1
Gabrielle do you belong to your husband or to christ?
my point WRT Gabrielle is simply this: A slut can truly repent and receive forgiveness. See the woman about to be stoned, whom Jesus forgave. Her repentance seems genuine. Her forgiveness and state are between her and God. Her relationship as wife and mother is between her and her husband. I wish her only the best.
My quarrel is with the Churchian “born again virgin” nonsense. Forgiveness and redemption and reformation do not mean the temporal slate is wiped clean. It does not mean that the reformed slut’s N is reduced to zero. it does not mean her chronic STDs will be eradicated. it does not mean all the baggage she has accumulated will magically disappear. It does not mean she will not have to face temporal consequences.
The murderer can find Jesus and be forgiven, and he will meet Christ in paradise. But on earth, he’ll remain in prison to pay the earthly penalties for his crimes. The reformed slut has it easier. She is forgiven, and is guaranteed heaven. On earth, unlike the criminal, she has a chance to break out of her self-fashioned incarceration. She at least has a fighting chance for marriage and motherhood. The tradeoff is she will probably not be able to marry as well as she could have had she not been a slut in her past. She will likely go through extended periods of time where she just doesn’t feel attraction for her husband — if she is fortunate enough to find a man willing to marry her. And she will have to take what she can get. And “what she can get” might very well be no one. These are the consequences she will have to walk out.
‘if she is fortunate enough to find a man willing to marry her’
HAHAHAHAHHAHAH. I’m sorry, beta males will line up around the block for the former slut. They will think they won the sexual lottery.
The real consequence as you correct stated is that her unhappiness is magnified by her alpha widowdom. But dude, pussy is a premium even for post wall sluts. I think you understimate the modern young beta male.
“beta males will line up around the block for the former slut. They will think they won the sexual lottery.”
Only if she’s hot, reasonably slender, and well-preserved. A hot slut, former or current, will have no trouble finding a husband.
Ff, you probably have a point there.
As one of the many lesser betas, i vouch for the appeal of the reformed sluts. Even with my own smp being low, i had several offers from former carousel riders.
Despite a strong sexual drive, i resisted my hindbrains impulses. And very glad about it.
Van rooineks story mirrors my own. It is not natural to have to wait, and i forever cringe at the beta behaviours that made that time more socially painful.
So now a majority of English girls want to be successful and independent, so I say good luck to them, but isn’t that yet another example of wanting to do what they think guys do – more apex fallacy projection. For a man, success is usually fleeting and never as much as he thinks he deserves, and men have simply no choice but to be independent, (seeing that hypergamous marriage – and getting through life on your looks and figure or hand-outs from the State or ex-spouses is not an option). I predict in twenty years these same young women will be complaining that no man wants to marry-up unable to grasp why they are either on the shelf or aging pump-and-dump material.
An observer,
I think what happened to you is that you resisted simply because you are afraid of sex now. Even if Megan Fox was proposing sex you would back away. You need to let the beast lose now my friend.
@deti:
My point WRT Gabrielle is simply this: […]
Part of what I personally find quite annoying in the manosphere is the tendency for Oprah-like TMI, True Confessions, and the like. I’m of the rather old fashioned opinion that people really shouldn’t air their dirty laundry in public, even under pseudonyms. We can talk about specific concrete scenarios all day without personalizing it. Often the discussion is more productive that way, because we can tweak the scenario to explore its boundaries.
But when a poster comes along in TMI mode, at the same time at least apparently asserting a flatly false understanding of (in this case) forgiveness, it needs to be corrected not enabled. I think you did right in offering correction.
It does look from her subsequent postings like Gabrielle really does get it though. I wish her blessings and Godspeed.
[D: Agreed.]
deti wrote:
This is an overreaction and over-application to an overinterpretation of a Protestant minority of the church. It is a bogeyman. Whoever spreads that partial truth should be corrected. Gabrielle did no such thing.
These sinners are not Mary, born Immaculate. Neither are any of us. We are all sluts in the eyes of the LORD. “For there is no distinction; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
But they are made Immaculate, washed in the Blood of the Lamb. “O happy fault! O necessary sin of Adam! which gained for us so great a Redeemer!” If you cannot wend your way through these truths which the devil calls “paradox,” you are not a practiced enough Christian. We want to make everything a syllogism, to make God’s ways comparable to our own — “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, / neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD. / For as the heavens are higher than the earth, / so are my ways higher than your ways / and my thoughts than your thoughts.” We chop his righteousness ways down to human size to understand them, to confine them, rather than simply trust in their truth and behold his mighty works through that truth. So we tease out all the premises until we find a satisfying contradiction, the one that justifies rebellion.
Gabrielle is not a virgin. She is greater than a virgin. “What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray?” Would you dare pronounce the Lord’s forgiveness insufficient?
All of these phantom consequences of Gabrielle’s redemption are false, demonic distractions to get you discount the power of God’s grace. The Lord doesn’t ask you to forgive her. He isn’t exhorting you to marry her. And he most certainly is not reverse-justifying her sin by taking the consequences for that sin upon himself. That is the clever anti-Christian’s definition of redemption. Ha ha ha! I’ll go and sin and then go to confession! And do it again! And confess again! What a dupe, that Almighty!
“Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.”
Come to grips with that eternal verity of the God Who is Love. And find a place for the penitent in your crusade, lest your cause create the very unrepentant sinning that mobilized you in the first place.
Matt
Don’t water seeks its own level? You call it debasing of marriage, but its up to you on who you choose to marry and set the terms of the marriage. The legal definition of marriage is known, but you marry at the church of your own choosing. Why are we confusing legal marriage from Christian marriage? They are not the same.
I don’t know when there was the pinnacle of Christian marriage. If someone knows the time and place it was actually practiced, I am willing hear from you.
@King A (Matthew King):
Come to grips with that eternal verity of the God Who is Love. And find a place for the penitent in your crusade, lest your cause create the very unrepentant sinning that mobilized you in the first place.
I think Deti is right on this. Is the suggestion that a convicted murderer who repents should, because of his repentance, be released from prison? Is the idea that if his repentance is genuine that he should even want release; or should he (as the Christian tradition suggests) embrace his just punishment as penance for his sins?
If he should not be released – if the temporal consequences justly remain for the convicted murderer – then what is it that makes the slut categorically different?
Ff,
I chose to resist because i did not trust women and their mind games. As did vr, i eventually found a woman worthy of wifing up after too many years single.
Extended celibacy is neither natural nor recommended. As such, i have no beef with players, unless they profess faith.
No, my beef is those good church girls, the hypergamous sluts who use beta men as emotional tampons, slut up their twenties before shopping for a provider. They know christian men have very few options, except to leave the churches, some abandoning their faith.
Alas, western civilisation.
Matt:
Gabrielle did not plead for relief from temporal consequences. her forgiveness and redemption are between her and God. I don’t dare call God’s forgiveness insufficient. That is not for me to say. I don’t even know if Gabrielle has suffered any temporal consequences as a result of sin; and it really doesn’t matter for the purposes I brought up. I also am not barring her from anything.
Grace and mercy and forgiveness are sufficient for eternal salvation in the next life. But consequences must be borne in this life if God wills it, because he tells us that His grace is sufficient for us. We all know sexual sin carries consequences with it. If the high N slut is lucky, the only consequence she’ll have after her repentance is that she deprived herself of time in the joy of marriage and biblically sanctioned sex.
But we also know that most suffer more severe consequences. They can’t find men willing to marry them. They aren’t attracted to the ever-shrinking pool of men willing to marry them. They have higher divorce rates. They have infertility problems. They have STDs, some chronic. They pine for their former alpha douchebag lovers who gave them exciting, vagina tingling sex. They have sexual hangups and baggage, preventing them from giving themselves fully to their husbands and trusting their husbands.
I would that none of these women who come to repentance would ever suffer any of this. But many of them do suffer it.
To be forgiven never automatically means you get to escape the temporal consequences of your action(s). You must still render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s. Those consequences that result from your actions must be borne out of that understanding. Even if you were talked into it, the sin is still on you and you must accept that responsibility. Otherwise confession, forgiveness, repentance and atonement have no meaning.
@Lib Arts Major
The long term (macro) solution requires that we first break through the denial about the present situation. If it weren’t for the denial we would be in a far better position.
The short term solutions (for an individual man) aren’t easy. I’ve touched on them before but as another commenter pointed out they would hopelessly expand the scope of the post. At any rate, the solutions available to the individual man all require a painfully clear understanding of the nature of the challenge.
Both the long term and short term solutions require that we understand and face reality. This is why I focus on defining the problem with both data and rhetoric (satire, metaphor, etc.). This is also why the OP ends with the force that it does. There is a very hard shell we have to break through.
For the record, I wasn’t aiming at repentant wives/mothers with this post; I have no desire to cause them (or their husbands) any further pain. I’m also not really focused on unrepentant sluts and PUAs who don’t intend to marry, especially if they aren’t having children. There is a moral issue there but it isn’t what I am aiming at. My aim is at men who are looking to marry and those who are in the position of counseling them; if they understand the risks they can make wiser choices when seeking a wife. I’m also aiming at young women who are tempted to shave a bit off here and there as the culture (and most Christians) are encouraging before seeking a husband with the assumption that it doesn’t hurt anything; they are a sort of triple-win where I might save them pain along with their future husband and children. Lastly, I’m aiming at those who believe in marriage and might be willing to stand up for it if they could see the violence which is being done to it.
Let me sharpen up Deti’s point here a bit, with a question for anyone who cares to attempt to answer.
After Jeffery Dahmer was baptized and “Born Again”, should he have been released from prison? Did his religious conversion wipe away all the effects of his actions prior to that point in time?
Just to refresh everyone’s memories, a summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer
Let’s see all this fine theory put into application. Should Dahmer have been released from prison, once he announced his religious conversion and was baptized? Why, or why not?
Use both sides of the paper if needed. There will be no curve in the grading.
ff
No, my beef is those good church girls, the hypergamous sluts who use beta men as emotional tampons, slut up their twenties before shopping for a provider. They know christian men have very few options, except to leave the churches, some abandoning their faith.
Some are like that. A lot more are just silly girls who are doing whatever the herd does, and have pretty much no clue what life for the young men is like. In a culturally conservative church, in theory the married women who are older would explain to these younger women just how downright cruel their actions are. Some of the younger women would change their ways, and some would not. Unhappily, the “women who are older” in most churches now are aging Boomers…some on their third marriage, some cougaring it up, some stuck in their 2nd stage feminism from 1975, and so forth. The blind – willfully in many cases – leading the young and silly.
Most young women in church would be better off reading this site, or SSM’s, or grerps if she hadn’t basically taken most of it down, than paying any attention to the matrons in the next pew.
The legal definition of marriage is known, but you marry at the church of your own choosing. Why are we confusing legal marriage from Christian marriage?
Are we on the same planet? In the end, only the legal definition matters. Sword of Domacles, cash, prizes, VAWA, etc.
“A lot more are just silly girls who are doing whatever the herd does, and have pretty much no clue what life for the young men is like. In a culturally conservative church, in theory the married women who are older would explain to these younger women just how downright cruel their actions are.”
I think there was a lot of this in the 1970s through 1990s — many girls just following the herd and doing whatever (or whoever) their crowd was doing. I suspect many of these girls really didn’t understand the consequences of what they were doing:
— they were destroying their marriage chances
–they would not be attracted to the men they could actually marry
— the group of men they could f**k was not a subset of the men they could marry;
— they were bonding to the men they were sportf**king or drunkf**king; or
— the men who gave them the best sex of their lives while they were 22 year old party girls probably were not going to marry them.
tbc: “There has been in my opinion, a slow and steady degradation of the commentary on this blog in the last few days/weeks. It seems a lot of time is spent arguing over terminology, attacks that go back and forth, and so on.”
JG: “Some of us would like to see the actual writeup discussed and not the scripture-based insult slinging. In other words, would it be too much to ask those who come here and engage in that behavior to start their own blogs and not hijack this one?
Dalrock, you’re losing control over your blog, pal. I would dare suggest that most of us don’t enjoy reading of the scripture-flinging crap by wannabe theologians looking to demonstrate their spiritual, moral and theological superiority over others.”
FuriousFerret: “Why the hell does everything have to evolve into Christanese?”
Add my voice to the above. I enjoy the original posts and intelligent commentary, but the ratio of bombastic, holier-than-thou, piety-worn-on-their-sleeve bible thumpers has really increased above tolerable levels over the past couple of months, and greatly decreases any incentive to contribute or otherwise participate in any way.
Deti
The herd is where it is at. Women are not cablable of virtue but will behave virtuously for status within the herd and damn sure not out any kind of empathy. No matter how much the stats show pain for men children and women women will behave in their own self interest. And always have. The Churchians greatest sin is projecting virtue on to women. It has destroyed the christian church in western society. In sane society the herd behaves virtuously. With women having the vote this will get very ugly returning sanity and politeness. (women should not have had the vote they are not cabable of handling the responsibility and never were ever.) If enough men learn the concept of game a shift in the herd can be accomplished without gunfire.
“I do not wish to share more about myself when I really do not think it would add to the conversation.”
Gabrielle, no one is asking you about yourself. No one was talking about you at all until you decided to insert yourself into the discussion. I’m glad some folks here made you feel better about yourself, but *this discussion isn’t about you*.
BC
The churchian types are terrified. They are being unmasked and have come to Dalrocks to derail the conversation. If you are serious stand up to them and say what you need to say on the subject in spite of them. They know they have lost and men they consider lesser than they are saving the christian church and western society in general. They do not lead the conversation on marriage and social morality the way they think they do. They have the largest and most universal voice but have failed and people are noticing and saying something about it. Ignore them and stand up to them and show no mercy.
Anyway not to derail the discussion here I want to make clear that no one is born immaculate but Jesus:
Romans 3:23
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
Hebrews 4:15
15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.
1 peter 2:22
22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth.
No other scriptural evidence describes anyone but Jesus as sinless. To depart from scripture is very dangerous.
The Churchian hijacking almost makes one wistful for Doomed Harlot, or even Susan Walsh.
@farm boy
Yes, this blog has declined since Churchians come here to hijack the thread and repeat every kind of rationalization to excuse bad female behavior.
Please don’t confuse this with real Christianity. If you want to know what real Christianity is, go to the Orthosphere. These guys are serious and they don’t practice Cafeteria Christianity or feminism disguised as Christianity.
OT. Guys failing only matters because it affects women
http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/1608281
@imnobody
Do you have links?
@deti
“The murderer can find Jesus and be forgiven, and he will meet Christ in paradise.”
Ah-no.
The murder meets his victim(s) at the Great White throne to be Judged by God.If the victims forgive,and God is willing (quite a presumption as the murderer has killed HIS child) the murder may possibly be allowed into heaven,but that would be rare/near impossible-quite an exception,you inadvertently placed yourself in the judgement seat and usurped God’s authority there.
As for Gabby, I would reference Christ’s parable of the paymaster who pays the same to the worker that did the full day vs the late comer receiving the same pay. It does seem unfair to the one who worked all day,but as Christ rebuked: “you agreed to the age and you were paid,who are you to tell me what I can pay the next person?” Roughly.
As for worldly repercussions those are varied and your mileage may vary.Less said the better- “By your words ye shall be judged.”
It’s important not to fall into the pride of being *more* humble than your neighbor!Just as it’s important to not be prideful.
This is why less is more and meek is better than boisterous evangelicalism.
Bottom line: The least amount of evil needed to carry the day!
OT. I wonder if feminism is involved in “vulgarity”…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/9593963/Girls-should-marry-to-avoid-being-raped-say-Indian-caste-elders.html
@farm boy
This is the blog:
http://orthosphere.org/
This guy is very good but it takes some time to get used to it.
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/
Now I am reading his book about political correctness (which is very good and free):
http://thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.com/
These websites are not for everybody. It took me quite a while to get their arguments and I don’t agree with everything they say. For me, the breakthrough was realizing that feminism was only a manifestation of liberalism and there was something rotten in liberalism, which is leading the Western civilization to collapse.
When I started reading these guys, I realized that even the most conservative (or religious) people are drown in liberalism and it takes a lot of thought to deprogram oneself. If the red pill was tough, this thing was the ultimate red pill.
…have her sign an ironclad pre-nup that includes that the children go to the father if she initiates divorce. (FuriousFerret)
No judge in any Family Court in the US would uphold such a prenup, so that’s really stupid advice. What you’re advocating is simply against the law. In this society, the woman and the court determines the father’s rights, if any, and he is last in line when it comes to having his interests and concerns considered. Patriarchy is now against the law. You cannot fix this catastrophe DIY style. You cannot stay out of trouble while trying to get in trouble at the same time.
Any lawyer who goes along in the construction of such a document as you propose is simply leading you along while stealing your money.
There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. No signed paper can hold the iron. It must come from men. The words of Ten Bears carries the same iron of life and death. It is good that warriors such as we meet in the struggle of life… or death. It shall be life. ”””””””’
the only type of iron clad prenump
freebird: I would reference Christ’s parable of the paymaster who pays the same to the worker that did the full day vs the late comer receiving the same pay. It does seem unfair to the one who worked all day,but as Christ rebuked: “you agreed to the age and you were paid,who are you to tell me what I can pay the next person?”
So, a delinking of cause and effect. Of effort, honesty and loyalty, and reward. Well, I always knew that churchianity was liberal socialist, but that’s enough to make me a conscientious objector right there.
Martian Bachelor: You cannot fix this catastrophe DIY style. You cannot stay out of trouble while trying to get in trouble at the same time.
Word.
Having watched the debasement of culture, society and family including marriage for my 40-some years, and followed manosphere discussions and developments for a number of years as well, I no longer think it is possible to change/save the culture or population as a whole. I no longer believe it is possible to educate and change people’s thinking on the scale necessary to make any kind of real difference to society at large. The elephant in the room is that the vast majority of people are happy with things as they are now, and willingly support structures and systems that either perpetuate or further degrade the status quo No material change for the better will occur until there are no other viable alternatives – that is to say until it is imposed upon society either through economic necessity or physical force.
I think all that can be done is to find/identify/create and fortify/insulate pockets of resistance that will be able to survive the ongoing “dark age”.
“Ah-no.
The murder meets his victim(s) at the Great White throne to be Judged by God.If the victims forgive,and God is willing (quite a presumption as the murderer has killed HIS child) the murder may possibly be allowed into heaven,but that would be rare/near impossible-quite an exception,you inadvertently placed yourself in the judgement seat and usurped God’s authority there.”
Have to point out that this is contradictory to Catholic teaching. Forgiving the murderer is not dependent on the victim, it is dependent on the degree of the repentance in the murderer’s heart and on God’s view of that repentance. Nothing else. It is not for us to judge the degree and the reality of that repentance. For that judgement is reserved to God. We can only apply to the murderer the societal consequences for that murder, i.e., the desire to separate the murderer from society. Man proposes, God disposes…
Catholicism teaches that anyone can be forgiven if they truly have repentance in their hearts. Yes even the worst murderers could find forgiveness under those conditions. But it is also taught that forgiveness belongs to God Himself, that this forgiveness is between the sinner and God and that sinners are still subject to the temporal consequences of their sins. Again, render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s.
Church teaching has been corrupted by feminist thought. And whilst nacgalt, the church sluts still badly influence other church girls on the margins into adopting poor behaviour.
As herd creatures, church girls (cg) are by and large destroying their own chances of happy marriage and family life. They take useless degrees, spend money foolishly, jostle for status, and reject advances from normal beta men.
As the wall approaches, the heavy duty shaming does the hard lifting and another church girl gets helped over the wall, escaping the consequences of her own poor choices.
Marriage is debased when church white knights deemphasise female culpability, instead focussing on man up lectures and the grace of forgiveness men are expected to extend, regardless of personal preference or cost.
Even if the woman has a low n count, her hypergamous pursuit of high smv men has left its mark. She will never be satisfied with the beta husband she eventually settles for. Maybe she hopes he will have an affair, look at porn, jaywalk, or commit some equally divorceable offence, so can trade him for cash and prizes.
The older married women are no help at all. They are engaged in their own struggle for status, and probably see Younger women as just a threat to be nullified. Bad advice fits thatbill admirably. Short hair? Looks cute. Career? Good as a backup. Gaining weight? Happens to everyone, dear. . .
Ah, church life. Sadly, i dont miss it a bit.
@Random Angeleno
Every Christian sect or denomination that I know of holds the same view that you gave on Who is the Judge. What Freebird wrote is simply not in scripture, or any Christian tradition.
@imnobody
Which instance of rationalization are you referring to, and what is Churchian–in the sense we’ve all come to use Churchian, as referring to behavior or words that might be attributed to Albert Mohler, or Glenn Stanton–about any of the comments in this post?
@Cane, I can only speak for Catholicism as I am one; I am not well read enough to offer much on other denominations. But thanks anyway.
@imnobody, please point to specific comments that made you think the thread was hijacked. I’m not getting that here.
@an observer, Catholic teaching is Catholic teaching. That feminists don’t think themselves subject to the teachings and in fact have caused many churches to pervert them does not exempt said feminists from the temporal consequences of failing to follow them. Speaking of which, I appreciate deti’s take on consequences and repentance.
@Matt “Come to grips with that eternal verity of the G_d Who is Love.”
Yes He is and then some. However, this is a very, very, very shortsighted statement and only 1/2 correct. G_d is all consuming fire also and this is clearly seen in His Presence in heaven (His throne) and earth (His footstool) when He reveals His Person. His name is Jealous and requires blood for disobedience. “The soul that sins shall die”. That is still in effect and will never, never change. Another way of looking at it – G_D sent His Son to fullfil the eternal spoken decree of “The soul that sins shall die” and the shedding of blood for disobedience (Christ took the hit).
Christ is a living demonstration of love to the Nth degree and also the living demonstration of wrath to the Nth degree and everything else in-between. His love is as great as His wrath.
His thoughts on “sin” is clearly seen on the mind boggling blood stained cross of Calvary and sending His Son to be pulverized by wicked men.
G_d forgives and it is based upon “repentance” (Acts 2:37 & Acts 3:19 are a couple examples), water baptism, and the dwelling of the Holy Spirit (ability to overcome known sin).
This is a portion of the New Covenant which is “RADICAL”. Non Jewish Christians have NO IDEA HOW RADICAL THIS IS. NO IDEA…. Forgiveness was just available under the OT Covenant (blood sacrifice, Levitical Feast Days Etc…) ie The Lamb of God who “takes away” the sin of the world (not just forgive but remove).
The New Covenant not only forgives but will “removes” of guilt, shame, and power if the disciple “repents” and no longer continues (known as overcoming)- it is a process and some sins take time and requires seriousness and not just a causal Sunday pew warmer.
There is not a single scripture that says while one is in the world they have to sin or there is a sacrifice for “known sin” – quite the opposite. This is seen the OT & N covenants.
Another way of looking at it -people are no different.
If one takes a marriage vow and then cheats on your partner multiple times while asking for their forgiveness every single time – one isn’t actually married they are married “de-jure” but not married “de-facto”. Try cheating on your spouse and see how they react. They “may” give you a second chance. Try cheating 2-10 times and see how far that gets or if someone does that to you.
Our marriage covenant with Christ is no different (2 Cor 11:2 & Eph 1 & 2 and many other scriptures)
Shalom
Anonymous Reader writes:
Look, your attempt to sensationalize the issue by presenting the most acute examples of injustice doesn’t fool us. The issue is whether you have faith that God can reconcile justice with mercy, period, or whether you, like Ivan Karmazov, have declared God’s covenant impossible.
Human justice does not balance the scales. Nothing in this realm can. Our devices are far too crude for that. And yet systems of justice remain necessary in a fallen world to preserve the order that allows the best possibility for repentance (Penitentiary) and rehabilitation (Corrections Facility). We begin encroaching on God’s prerogative — “‘Vengeance is mine,’ says the LORD” — by allowing tawdry tabloid emotionalism to convince us that we must and can execute perfect justice.
Dahmer should not have been released from prison because we do not have perfect knowledge of his reconciliation or lack thereof, and neither did he; to keep his soul from further imperiling itself, it behooves us as an act of mercy to prevent him from falling back into the pattern that gripped him before he was baptized. This is very different from usurping God’s prerogative and assuming it possible to incarcerate (or kill) him in an act of perfect justice, despite the near certainty of our righteousness when dealing with the clearest cases of evil. The only justice for Dahmer must include the resurrection of his victims, and perfect justice would have required it never happening in the first place. “Who then can be saved?” ask the apostles in next Sunday’s Gospel reading. And Jesus replied,
But since you’re not really talking about Dahmer but rather Gabrielle the repentant, shall we forget her history and treat her like a virgin? Of course not. We don’t offer recovering alcoholics a cocktail either. Mind, she never asked to be treated like a non-sinner. She — and I — only insisted we think twice before allowing a proper corrective get carried away into a self-righteous frenzy, as often happens through the reinforcing dynamic of mobs.
zippycatholic continues this line of questioning:
Yes! The truly repentant is suspicious of light sentencing. Because true penitents know that to sin against the infinite grace of God requires infinite repayment. If rejecting the Lord who gave you life does not alert you to the recognition of an unpayable debt, you are underestimating the magnitude of your transgression. Our existence is sustained second-by-second through the love of a Creator who did not have to give us a taste of this life, much less any of the bountiful joys we have experienced while created. To spit in his face for it? To sin? It is a fish cursing the ocean for being too wet. The more penitent you are, the more you understand the one-divided-into-zero, permanently infinite gap between crime and punishment. A gap that can only be closed by God himself through the Son. “For God so loved the world…”
At the same time, to allow this healthy suspicion to deny the possibility of one’s being saved is scrupulosity and worse, the haughty denial that God’s mercy is larger than our despair.
deti writes:
Of course forgiveness does not obviate temporal consequences. Such is the tragedy of the eye for the eye. But what is infinitesimal temporality compared to disunion with the Lord sub specie aeternitatis? Prison time, forty lashes, the indignation of the victim’s survivors vanish to nothing, a flickering and soon extinguished matchstick against the sun. Again, Gabrielle’s and my criticism was about losing our perspective and becoming obsessed with our duties to effect “temporal consequences” against the reality of the Lord’s wholly gratuitous redemption. To overemphasize the former without mentioning the latter is to bind oneself “in a nut shell and count [oneself] a king of infinite space….” A sin in itself? No. But a soul-endangering practice.
The final consolation is the knowledge that the wages of sin is death:
The comeuppance begins arriving temporally, as you note, long before the sinner meets the throne of judgment, The Last Things, and before we all experience the Dies Irae. Nature herself begins reversing the rebellion. The consequences accrue almost immediately, whether anyone acknowledges them or not. Why then are we so insistent on the mote in our neighbor’s eye?
I submit that beta ressentiment drives this passion for perfect justice more than anything. The quality of our embrace of Gabrielle matters. Do we welcome her back to the fold with generous largess, as fathers to prodigal daughters? Or do we fool ourselves into thinking it magnanimous to ratify her life of unrepentant sin by marrying unreconstructed sluts past their sell-by date, who slowed down out of physical necessity rather than true metanoia? The latter is thinly disguised cowardice that does the sinner and the beta chump no favors. The former is to be an agent of the Lord. Betas, being betas, will deny such holiness possible and begin searching for familiar weaknesses in the holy man, and finding none, will invent them. This is why men who deliver prostitutes from the streets or drunks from the bottle are regarded as “white knights” and “manginas” by the pissants of this resentful community.
It is divine to forgive a slut and treat her like a dear sister, rather than as a post-carousel matrimonial “prize” to deliver you from your chumpy solitude. It is malicious to conclude that these very different considerations of her slutty past derive from the same beta cowardice. But it should not surprise us that the miserly soul which cannot conceive of magnanimity will imagine his small-dicked fantasies of revenge constitute the only just response for all mankind.
Matt
Well intentioned commentators see a problem, and without wishing to criticise individual contributors, write something akin to this:
“His blessing alone can heal this land, and the only way to get his blessing is by being righteous.”
Besides harking to old testament theology, it avoids identifying the errors that led to calamity. Like a screening device for the sins of Eve. As big D has said, there is such denial. Such blanket statements perpetuate the deceptive misuse of Romans 5:8.
Before we can progress, there must be recognition of failure (“sin”, in christianese) and repentance (acknowledgement of error and seeking fresh beginnings). I do not see much of either in the broader culture. I see a culture victimhood, misandry and attempted takeover.
I sympathise with the desire to speak truth. But Christian jargon and blanket statements are not progressing the discussion.
JG writes:
No, “pal.” We “demonstrate [our] … superiority over” you by leading the conversation where we want it to go, rather than whining to the teacher that we’re not talking about the things JG wants to talk about. If you want a different discussion, say something interesting to precipitate one, rather than issuing a general call for censorship.
More beta tells. To imagine that Dalrock is “losing control” of his blog is to conflate your fears with another’s accomplishment. Allowing an open discussion is a mark of strength. Seeing others disagree, or not following the precise script you imagine, is only a calamity for the overweening nerd who fantasizes about controlling all men to such a degree that they are forced to acknowledge his shortcomings as virtues. The rest of us just present ourselves, bear witness, testify, and represent; then we judge and are judged, defend, offend, and speculate according to our various rhetorical capacities. At no point does your insecure griping enter the arena.
Matt
an observer writes:
Indeed. Recognition of failure and the need for repentance are indispensable elements of the crusade.
But when do we get to start the show?
These matters must proceed simultaneously along parallel fronts. The timidity that leads to inaction is caused in part by wallowing in critique — righteous as it is! — rather than boldly creating an atmosphere of solutions. And included in that atmosphere of reform is a place for sisters like Gabrielle. We can begin preparing a place for women like her to encourage their becoming allies, rather than feminist enemies, because the enemy right now is pitching a much better life to her, a life of false redemption, but it is an enticing promise nonetheless.
We can have these discussions without retarding any line of progress. The issues are not, in fact, at loggerheads. Reducing the power of the slut culture does not mean we cannot help redeem any individual slut, and in fact, the personal redemption assists the general cause in a small way. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Matt
Michael Singer writes:
I have referred to this above as God’s reconciliation of justice — a promise — with the inexplicable mercy of sending his only Son in our stead. One does not forget justice by being merciful, otherwise it is not true mercy. God fulfills justice through mercy as only the Deity can. Our attempts at reconciling those two necessary elements of the good only underscores our arrogance, ineptitude, and fruit-grabbing insolence. Does the criminal get away with his crime through human pardons? Yes, for a time. Our attempts at mercy are as partial as our attempts at justice are insufficient. But we are required to practice mercy all the same, particularly as a test of faith that the Lord will settle all accounts fully, and it is better to err on the side of mercy from a position of strength. Justice will have its moment on the Day of Wrath. “I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out.” Meantime, mercy has its moments every day, every second we draw breath.
We imitate God only in fear and trembling, for if we “use[d] every man after his desert … who should ‘scape whipping?” We imitate his mercy because God has already been merciful to us. We hesitate to mimic his justice because we are not his “all consuming fire,” because it is not yet doomsday, and because justice requires perfect wisdom, whereas mercy only requires courage and simple faith. We can’t always be perfectly just, but we can always be merciful. This balance is a central concern to the Christian and therefore requires serious study. It is not enough to say our God is merely the Lord of Justice or merely the Lord of Mercy. Somehow he must be both, for justice on this earth requires us to “cut the baby in half.” And I have seen his mercy first hand.
Matt
Let’s expose Matt a.k.a. Queen A(sshole) for the bigoted hypocrite he really is.
http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/10/08/balancing-sexual-pluralism/#comment-10652
“Cowards running from a fight to get cheap brown pussy.”
So, here we have a professed holier-than-thou Christian, but what we really have is a strawman-shaming, racial bigot who likes to make bombastic pronouncements claming that his way is the only way, and anyone who disagrees is going to hell.
Really Christian of you there, Matt.
And really lets us know how we should take your words.
‘The murder meets his victim(s) at the Great White throne to be Judged by God.If the victims forgive,and God is willing (quite a presumption as the murderer has killed HIS child) the murder may possibly be allowed into heaven,but that would be rare/near impossible-quite an exception,you inadvertently placed yourself in the judgement seat and usurped God’s authority there.’
These people are insane.
Can I make up rules too? So when you get to heaven, you get a hot fudge sundae. Then you fight an MMA match to determine what kind of angel you are. After this you play Call of Duty with Jesus to determine what kind of house you live in heaven.
@Mathew King
Thanks for the browbeating.
I sure hope you are not somebody’s boss.
FF
They are indeed mad. They are just losers hiding behind the veneer of religion. I remember from the movie the good,the bad and the ugly there was a scene from “the ugly” with his brother the priest, you are either a poor farmer, you fight,or become a preist to survive. The farmer created the wealth for all of society and married and had kids lived poor and were made victims of abuse from time to time. the fighters lived better but rquired a lot of courage and they tened to not last very long, and then the preist the respectable cowards “i won’t fight evil for I am by my religion against violence” The same guy will pray for safety and security which always comes in the form of another man risking his life and sacrificing his innocence standing up to and stopping evil. This time the evil is from within the walls of the veneer.
BC:
Interesting find. Here’s another: “Get your faggot asses out of my country.”
Looks like he could be another Sodini.
I’m tired of the theologicans that are cropping up.
My problem with them is they are the same people that have gotten us into this mess. What I see is people that simply trump up their own crackpot ideas about religion while putting up bible verse out of context. They seem to have no pratical application about what they are talking about either.
I don’t include King A with them though. When it writes, it doesn’t just throw shit at the wall and hope it sticks. While I don’t agree with his points, he makes arguements that have logical defensable positions. Not just random religious blatterings.
Look at Singer. He writes G_d instead of simply writing God. That says all you need to know about him.
Same goes for GBFM. He claims this moral superiority positions and then uses a stupid gimmick. When you have to resort to using an out place internet speak to get your point across you are a fool. Just more mental masterbation and some kind of weird one ups manship.
I like posters like Deti. He is religious and is pragmatic. He has sensible ways of getting his points across and discusses the matters that concern this blog.
@ Ezra on October 7,12:30PM
I too usually ‘lurk’ here, and comment very little. But I found reason to comment on your post (in reply to ‘M’).
“Most Christian women’s highest and first calling IS to wife and mother.”
This is true. Agreed.
I, like you am a woman. I agree that a woman’s highest calling is to be wife and mother, of course. But where you and I diverge is the benefit of pre-marriage education and work.
The specific example ‘M’ gave of a 28 year old virgin doctor is one that should be commended, and NOT criticised in any way.
She has attained one of the highest education programmes. And she is still of the mindset that her virginity is important – this demonstrates hard work AND self-control/self-discipline…
Great combination, no?
Sure, she will most likely leave the profession when she has children eventually. But do you really think this is a negative rather than a positive?
Whilst I think it IS a shame that a man somewhere probably got denied a place in medical school because of this woman, somehow I don’t think this is all that likely…let’s face it.
Even if she only works 2-4 years as a doctor pre-marriage, her training NEVER goes to waste. I am also willing to bet that her future husband will see the value of her education even if it would not directly be used to acquire money early on their marriage when she might be busy having and raising children (which of course would be the right thing to do).
These women may well return to their professions after their children are grown, or they may follow a closely-allied career path. Either way, that education (and work ethic) never goes to waste. Please don’t knock it!
There is nothing wrong in being a home-schooled 18 year old who learned to bake cakes and sew with Mum and Grandma in the house until marriage. I like that too.
But the 28 year old doctor who remained a virgin is also very desirable (not really because she is a doctor, but perhaps she may be more to a man’s liking precisely because she would understand better HIS world of blood, sweat and tears at work…).
If she is also traditional, virginal, knows that her doctor’s degree does NOT entitle her to be a dragon towards men, well, then, talk about a man-magnet 🙂
Sure, this is a male dream, and not many women will be like this, granted. But I took you up on this specific example ‘M’ gave, because it seems to me that even in the face of ‘perfection’, some of you people out there will knock it down. This is not a good thing to do, if I may say so…
“I don’t think anyone here is advocating young women “do needlepoint” and “burden their families” while waiting for a marriage proposal; there are really plenty of other options. Such a young woman might serve as a stay-at-home daughter, or she might work in a simple job that doesn’t require her to compromise her feminitity, or better yet, she might volunteer and work with the infirm, the elderly, the less fortunate. She might spend her time under the mentorship of an older Titus II woman who can teach her how to be a loving wife and mother, since this is a lost art and hardly anyone follows the word of God in this area. She can help her own mother manage the household.”
It is indeed possible for a woman with a high-flying career to do all of the above on the side. If she is not busy ‘riding the carousel’, there should be plenty of space in her life to ‘train to be a wife’ alongside her career.
You speak as though the two need be mutually exclusive. My point is that it does not have to be.
I see where you are coming from though. ‘Higher education’ in this day and age has become synonymous with the hook up culture. I think this is a crying shame.
If women saw education as a tool to help them with their families later on in their lives, i.e. in the role of ‘helper’ to their eventual husband, then there really would be no need for this useless hook up nonsense.
And the feminists need to stop saying to young women how hook up and prostitution are so jolly ’empowering’. This is not true, and they know it.
That ‘Belle de Jour’ woman, Brooke Magnanti, I think she is called…she may have a doctorate and all, (which her days as a prostitute was used to finance), but at what cost?
Even she, I am sure, is deep down not convinced that she is so jolly ’empowered’ by her choices. She is lying to herself and is encouraging others to go down the same route…
Disingenuous…
And because there are so many like her around, an advanced degree obtained by a woman is viewed with a certain ‘suspicion’.
Terrible association.
We do need highly educated women. But the right kind, as I describe above.
I like posters like Deti. He is religious and is pragmatic. He has sensible ways of getting his points across and discusses the matters that concern this blog.
Agreed. I am looking for useful insight. It is getting more difficult to find it here.
Cool your jets, everybody.
King A says what he says, and said what he said at Rollo’s I’m not one to point fingers and accuse of racism in this case, not because of what was said, but because of the obvious motive behind the accusation. The motive I submit is not to expose racism, but to silence a viewpoint we don’t agree with.
Shall we also point fingers at the truly redeemed slut and say “once a slut, always a slut”? Shall we also point fingers at the new man, and say “forever beta”? Every one of you could accuse me and condemn me forever, if you knew the entire truth about me. Which you don’t. And you won’t. This corner of the web already knows enough to consign me to the Ninth Circle.
Like him or not, King A holds up a mirror to the cause and checks it against scripture. Like it or not, we need to figure out where Christianity — real, true Christianity — and game intersect. We need to figure it out because men and women need both. We need Christianity because nothing and no One else — not even poon — will sustain us in the much, much tougher times to come. Women need Christianity because the only thing that will sustain them in those times are good, sturdy men, ready to do violence if need be. We need game because there is no structure within American Christianity to support a patriarchy, to build up men, to make them good men. The reality on the ground is that Churchianity actively works against men, and therefore against women.
We need everyone. Everyone. Close ranks. Band together.
Can we agree we don’t need Susan Walsh though?
I’m sorry, deti, but regardless of motive, by implication he insulted my wife – my good, honest and faithful Asian wife of 20+ years, in a racist way (Asian women = cheap brown pussy). The man is scum. Pompous, arrogant, holier-than-thou scum.
Susan Walsh, for whatever her merits and flaws, exempts herself from the ‘sphere, from what I can tell. I like Susan and (mostly) get along with her; but I don’t agree with most of her views, nor she with mine.
BC,
Why do you resort to PC bullshit? There are a lot of guys that go to Asian countries to score with women that live in poverty. Do we really need to be politcally correct in the ‘sphere? Really? You damn well know what he meant by ‘cheap brown pussy’ in the context.
Politcally Correctness is one of the worst things I have ever encountered in my life. I hate it with every inch of my being. It’s noble in intentions but is almost always used as a offensive weapon.
by implication he insulted my wife
Is that an instance of making the discussion about you?
@FF, zippycatholic:
No, and no. If you had bothered to go to the comment I linked, and then scroll up just a tiny bit to read my original comment that Queen A excerpted and twisted, you would have seen that neither Mark Minter nor I said anything about Asia at all, and that a little below that in my post I said that “I have lived overseas for over 20 years, and am also still stably and happily married to the same woman after over 20 years.” I have also mentioned elsewhere that I am in Asia.
I understand the ‘cheap brown pussy’ context, and am not offended by it per se because 1) the stereotype exists, and 2) I have not talked much about personal circumstances thus far, so when someone mentions it I know that they don’t know and aren’t talking me in particular. However, just when I add a little personal information to help explain a point I am making, well… draw your own conclusions as to why Queen A said what he said.
The threat was hijacked when Gabrielle talked to us in a self-righteous tone because somebody used the word “slut”. But she had the good sense to withdraw. However, following her, many Churchian men came here throwing Bible verses as if they were sh*tting, repeating the standard Churchian interpretation in line with modern liberalism and our decadent society and having this holier-than-thou attitude. Their Christianity is a mixture of feminism and Christianity but they don’t know it.
The fact that the thread was hijacked is evident. This was a thread about the debasement of marriage, not about religion. I love to discuss Christianity but they are other blogs for that.
@BC:
OK. I don’t have a dog in the fight, and would just like to see the discussion elevated to where it is about the subject matter rather than all the personalization and TMI.
On that note, the clipping analogy is good but it has a flaw. Promiscuity doesn’t just shave value off of the outside of the coin: it changes the basic material of them coin to something of lesser value. It isn’t as if the gold that remains is still virgin-pure.
I’m adding this on my list of blogs to read from time to time.
Its my first time here. And this is a great post, Darlock
[D: Thank you, and welcome.]
Pingback: Marriage: Hollywood Versus Real Life « Frankly, my dear
Anyone who is interested in King A’s racial views will find ample material in his comments at Chateau Heartiste.
@ Dalrock
I appreciate the response, but my “hard shell of denial” has long since been cracked. I spent plenty of time during my youth knowing there was a problem without understanding or identifying it completely – watching the divorce of my parents after 32 years of marriage can attest to this. Safe to say that in the last 5 years, reflecting on all of the events that surrounded the divorce and the problems I witnessed in every day life regarding marriage and relationships has made things more clear.
However, understanding the problem and solving the problem are two different things. Handing someone the red pill on marriage (read: awareness) is akin to yanking someone naked and screaming out of the Matrix and into the ugliness of the real world. But without anything to go on from there or any inkling on where to go next, what’s left besides suffering?
Manosphere bloggers time and time again point out the gender war and rail against the problems, but hardly anyone affords answers to these very same problems. The few that do ring pretty hollow.
A PUA is going to tell me that if I can just “up my game” and have sex with dozens of different women per year that this will fix the problem? If I just spend countless hours practicing appearing to be “Alpha” that women will eventually see me as such? Hey, newsflash – if you act a certain way long enough, you can eventually convince people that you’re something that you’re not. Amazing discovery there. Not all of us are looking for an STD either.
MGTOW is nothing but egression and withdrawal from the situation altogether. If anything, it’s a tactical retreat by Men from a seemingly unwinnable gender war. You’ll save yourself the trouble alright, but for those of us who wanted a relationship, we still lose.
What’s left? Proselytizing some Bible verses and praying to God to deliver you to the “right” woman? Certainly God will provide, right? I grew up in a Christian home and went to a private Christian school for 14 years Dalrock, yet for all of this, I have learned first hand that Christians go through bitter divorces just like everyone else, if not worse. I have witnessed (and had corroborated to me through sites like this) that the Protestant denominations actively FACILITATE divorces now.
I don’t have answers, nor do I expect to have some massive epiphany or read some blog where they magically appear. If anything I imagine I will create a path if I expect to have one. Jesus came to save the lost, not those who were already believers. Analogous to this, It’s extremely likely that this blog no longer applies to me. I haven’t been lost for some time now – I just don’t have a destination.
@Lib Arts Guy
If Traditionalism isn’t the answer
And MGTOW isn’t the answer
And Church has been corrupted by Feminism, moral relativisim, and Churchanity
And PUA isn’t the answer
Remind me again, “How then should we live?”
I really understand your frustration. I don’t know your inclination, but here is how I came to terms with the world and found a way forward.
Take a spiritual gifts inventory. I found a fairly comprehensive one online: Inventory
Really focus on the gifts God gave you. The frustration I felt was worldly (divorce, for example). But also because I wasn’t really working within my gifts. It’s like they say, “When you like what you’re doing, it doesn’t seem like work.” When you work within your gifts, you accomplish more and have a greater sense of purpose.
Identify your gifts. Pray for God to give you an understanding of how you can serve Him. When looking over churches, keep a skeptical eye, because they are manmade churches. They may have good people with good intentions, but could be on troubling paths. Find a good church, ensuring you don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good (i.e. pragmatic expectations), and work your ministry within that church.
It has worked for me. I stopped resisting what I really felt God calling me to do and just started to work with the gifts He gave me and not pining for paths that were not suited for me, no matter how much I wanted them.
Take the inventory, pray, reflect, find your ministry/mission, and dedicate your energy toward that goal. You will have a sense of purpose and usefulness. Don’t let the despair trick you into thinking that there is no purpose. I’m probably a bit more sensitive about some of the language you used. If you want to, email me: theairborneagle@yahoo.com
All the best.
I second deti’s remark. My wife is a “brown girl” as well, but she has not proven cheap, rather, indispensable. BC’s comment defended neither his wife nor mine, and worst of all, it didn’t engage A-Leroy’s argument.
I’ll admit I married foreign because the American girls I was pursuing weren’t giving me the time of day. Yeah, in A-Leroy’s terms, I couldn’t compete. In every contest you have winners and losers. NEVERTHELESS, I completely agree with A-Leroy’s assessment of those who prescribe foreign women as a leveler for the current unbalanced sexual playing field. I speak my wife’s language fluently, which allows me a more intimate relationship with her and her family than I suspect is the case with the majority of men who marry foreign. Marrying outside your culture is not for cowards, and those who go abroad seeking pussy alone at any cost are beneath contempt.
Of course, that is true if you are pursuing American girls like FFY, Eurogirls like Krauser, or internationals like Roosh. If you are performing for the pussy snacks, you’re a trained seal or a milkweed tuft upon the whimsies of an estrogenic breeze.
As concerns Susan Walsh, you do well to pay attention to her. She is fighting another battle on another field, BUT ANYBODY WHO VIEWS THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN IN ADVERSARIAL TERMS has already lost the battle. Evolution favors couples, assholes, no matter how ephemeral, rather than freemartins.
Cool reference greyghost, I liked the good,bad and the ugly as well.
The preachers crime was to vacate his position as protector of his wife.He offered her as a sacrifice to Clint’s character to buy his proxy violence.If he had offered himself up that would have been different.He did indeed impinge upon another persons rights,not his own.
I suspect gamers would sacrifice a woman to buy security from the law as well,after all “it’s just poon.”
Funny that!
There is nothing “churchian” about the scripture on everyone being paid the same,come early or late,it is pure Christianity.If you’re anti-Christian just say so,instead of conflating the two.
It would suck to live in a might makes right and no forgiveness society.
If that is the case you force all to escalate to the very end.Chances are good few would survive such a scenario.Even prisoners are said to have paid the price to society after being freed.I suppose you think they have should be punished eternally and arbitrarily according to your feelings upon the matter.This is the corrupting influence the matriarchy has.
Good luck with your Venusian arts, it leads to hell for men.
To expand a bit,the Greeks and Romans framed it as Venus vs Mars for good reason,when men forget the civilizing aspects of society to pander to women conflict results,by worshiping Venus you beckon Mars.
Christianity formed civilization by forgiving the harlot as well as the whore-monger.You would have just the one.
This conflict of the interests of individual vs society has been an eternal one.
Feminism loves the secular anti-Christian element because it allows for injustice to their gain at the COST of the rest of society.To play along with that just to get your dick wet is asking for societal breakdown,anarchy,chaos.
There is a just system,or there is conflict.
And I second asinus.
After much thought, I have to agree that it is in no one’s interest to cast men and women as adversaries. I offer these caveats:
Who as a group first brought down Marriage 1.0 and did away with widespread assortative mating so as to chase and ride hot alpha cock? Who is debasing marriage? Who is filing 2/3 of the divorces? Who is reluctant to commit, putting it off as long as possible; and who wants out of their commitments when the going gets tough? I know there are others who believe it does no good to assign blame, but if we don’t know where we’ve been, we can’t fix it.
And who is doing the fighting? What are they fighting for? Not marriage as befits both men and women; but more like marriage and relationships on women’s terms, I think. I think that women will have to come down from the ledges too and lay down their arms. For their part, men mostly are not waging war, but rather retiring from the battlefield or lounging in Marrakesh at RIck’s Cafe Americain, exhorting Sam to “play it again”.
From my perspective, it seems that every time I come here, there are more comments about how it’s all hopeless, and someone else needs TO DO SOMETHING, or that we need to let it all burn. That is cowardice and insanity. There is no glory in that, and I am loathe to let it go unchallenged; because of my temperament; because of my interests; because of my faith.
Several of you want Dalrock to ban people who irritate you by speaking too much “Christianese”*. You want PUAs to seduce sluts in revenge of your rejection. You want the state to reintroduce patriarchy for you. At every turn you want other men to be the dick you will not be. These may not all be true of each who has complained in this particular post, but that is the gist of many of the comments here.
I probably bear some responsibility for that, in this particular space. It was more cohesive before Dalrock let me write a guest-post. There were basically the pro-Game folks, the MRAs, and a smattering of Feminist foils. But even putting my post aside, there has been a fracturing of the old alliances all across the Manosphere. This is what happens when new members are infused to a group. They bring their ideas with them.
Deti’s comment about the PC attack on Matt King was spot on–and revealing of the people who wish I, he, and GBFM to be banned. How fast they back away when I and Random Angeleno ask for examples of “rationalizations of women’s bad behavior.” The only thing that could be said was that Gabrielle did this. What did you expect in an emotional response from a woman? And why throw her comment on everyone else you don’t like to hear from? Lastly, she had a point. I don’t like the way she made it, but she had a point.
If the word “Churchian” means anything, then your statement is downright delusional. It’s certainly possible that you never meant Churchian to have any meaning other than a general term of derision against anyone you don’t like who quotes scripture, but then it’s useless, and I can dismiss it out of hand. And not a soul in this thread can rightfully be accused of rationalizing any woman’s behavior. I think the truth is that any statement that doesn’t hold clear and fast to the line that “beta” men have been unjustly wronged by the women they “deserve” is considered a rationalization for not torching nearly all women. It’s pathological, and petulant. Worse, it won’t get you what you want.
You piss and moan about the digressions on vocabulary. You piss and moan about the digressions on the Christian approach to problems–which is the bloody thrust of this blog, and its author has said repeatedly that the lack of it should be embarrassing to us. You piss and moan about “it was so much better in the old days”, and us “old guys” (mid-30s here) just don’t understand. There was a time when I thought many here were truly confused, but now I think most of those are just here to piss and moan. I’m here to give and take ideas.
So, often that means GBFM ridicules me up and down a few comment pages. Matt King has done likewise. So have many others. Yet, I see the value in it because it is out of such clear and testing debate that minds are changed, and futures are won. A few posts back, Cail was on my case. In the comments of this post, he upheld the same one I’ve been making. And good for both of us. Deti’s comments resonate with me more than they used to**, and that, too, is good I think. What is almost certain is that each of us contesting and refining the ideas and vocabulary will be leading the way out of this mess, or at least informing those who will. You don’t have to like me, or agree with what I say, but even thinking through why you believe I’m wrong will bring you closer to the goal of shutting down the matrix of lies around us. Debating definitions isn’t useless. It tends to crystallize amorphous concepts into useful tools when we’re not looking. Wherever men are, there is going to be competition. That competition makes us all stronger. Afterwards, there should be good sportsmanship–grace–which is necessary for the next bout to happen, and gives us all a noble place in the story.
When the time comes to grab your sack and power down a corner of that matrix–even in some petty office job, or to your wife–it won’t be motivated by the remembrance you have of a really rousing session of beat up the slut in Dalrock’s comments. It will be because someone got through to you; they broke that illusory shell of impenetrability that Feminism and Liberalism projects. Mostly, men who make these complaints don’t make that stand at all. They’re too busy worrying about possible repercussions to take action.
*This slang already has a meaning, and there’s no example of it in these comments, that I recall.
**Not a shot about the lists, Deti. I simply agree with you more.
We can talk about civilizing aspects or we can degrade to the bonobo level the fems desire,saying crap like ‘ I did your wife and if you don’t like it I will punch you in the face.”
Women love that shit.
I do view man and women relationships as being adversarial. As Rollo has tried to demonstrate women will never love a man like we want them to. We are seen as a resource, an accessory to her life. Also, this isn’t inherently bad, it just is. This is the very essensce of the red pill. Men even guys on her still want to believe in fairy tale love. This just doesn’t exist.
Most children will not love their parents as their parents love them. The same goes for wives, they just can’t understand nor love their husbands as their husband love them.
Futhermore, I can’t find any mention in the bible where disney type of love between man and woman is supposed to exist. Mutual submission is a joke, so is mutual love. Why is so hard to accept the reality? I don’t even think this is a bad thing. It just is.
I you want a good woman you have to conquer her. If you want a good relationship YOU have to take charge and control it. She is not going to help you. You have to take the responsibility and see it through. That’s why it’s adversarial because I don’t expect her to make it work. It’s adversial because love is conditional for most women and if you want a high quality women, the onus is on you to pass all her shit test and condtions and succeed. And even after that if you fall out of favor, it’s curtains for you.
If you can’t understand that I don’t think you fully have accepted women’s true nature.
Anonymous Reader writes:
Just to refresh everyone’s memories, a summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer
Let’s see all this fine theory put into application. Should Dahmer have been released from prison, once he announced his religious conversion and was baptized? Why, or why not?
Look, your attempt to sensationalize the issue by presenting the most acute examples of injustice doesn’t fool us. The issue is whether you have faith that God can reconcile justice with mercy, period, or whether you, like Ivan Karmazov, have declared God’s covenant impossible.
When I wish to test a system of any sort, one important test is to see what it does at various limits. Because at limits, or under extreme conditions, system failure can be revealed that is hidden in normal conditions. Therefore, my question pushes aside much blather and tests one aspect of whatever ethical system a given person is employing, in terms of actions and consequences.
Apparently it offends you to be challenged to actually deal with a real world problem, and so you wish to bellow at me, in yet another attempt to shout down any disagreement or even questioning. Well, this isn’t the 16th century, and you are mere paper-thin, wannabe, imitation of Tomas de Torquemada. Bear that in mind in the future, please. Your turgid, bullying tirades are as tiresome in their way as GBFM’s babble.
Dahmer should not have been released from prison because we do not have perfect knowledge of his reconciliation or lack thereof, and neither did he; to keep his soul from further imperiling itself, it behooves us as an act of mercy to prevent him from falling back into the pattern that gripped him before he was baptized.
Thank you for answering the question. It is useful information.
PUA = Pussy Unification Attendee
An observer said:
“The older married women are no help at all. They are engaged in their own struggle for status, and probably see Younger women as just a threat to be nullified. Bad advice fits thatbill admirably. Short hair? Looks cute. Career? Good as a backup. Gaining weight? Happens to everyone, dear.”
Of course, sadly, this is generally true.
Personally, I wish my husband and I could find a real church where I had younger women to mentor that would listen to me. As it is, I try to be led by Christ and do this as I come across women in day to day life – but, alas, they have no respect for older women!
I do not give up. Although I am not perfect, I do have some wisdom from living for forty-two years and from learning from God. But the “younger” women, from teen to those in their early thirties, simply believe in “Fluffy-clouds and rainbows, dancing unicorn Jesus who gives them everything they want when they do a fill-in-the-blank Bible study”. They have no use for what I preach: repentance, faith, fruits of the Holy Spirit such as temperance, meekness and goodness; pursuit of holiness in lifestyle; grace for OVERCOMING sin as God reveals it; development of character over development of exterior image (though prettiness is important in marriage), respect, honor and submission in all things to their husbands, being a keeper of home, lover of husband and children.
They have no use for it.
They know it all; they’re “taught by their wonderful Pastor, thank you.”
What’s up anaon reader,you’re answering your own questions?
Here’s some reality: there is a difference between body,soul,and mind.
We keep his body and mind locked up.
PUA’s seem to be leaning towards the idea that the 3 are one.That justifies self interest very nicely.Mars,calling Mars,we have a battlefield for you.
@Dalrock
“My aim is at men who are looking to marry and those who are in the position of counseling them; if they understand the risks they can make wiser choices when seeking a wife.”
Message received loud and clear. I myself am dating a girl and we are coming up on dating for a year. She will soon if hasn’t already started thinking of marriage and I am going to have to seriously weigh the consequences here. She is actually a virgin, but has a history of dating Alphas who got her to do everything but have sex. I have a very serious decision to make and now I feel like I am dealing with a majority of the facts. She is a “Christian” “good girl” and I still have a hard time justifying in my mind this going to a contract signing. It’s sad, but this is what the world has come to.
For the record, I neglected to include to whom the above posting was replying. It is directed at King. A ( Matthew King), who is the only man so far to answer my question and provide a reason for his answer.
Has anyone here even bothered speaking up in their church’s men’s group? Has anyone of you dared to read a Red-Pill inspired article from Dalrock or any other man in the manosphere to one of these groups?
http://empathological.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/noahs-response/
I read this post a few weeks ago to the newly formed men’s group at my church because it dealt with a man’s responsibility AND authority within marriage. I took a huge risk in doing this, and have gotten very little feedback since then (especially because it directly went against what the pastor was talking about when he brought up mutual submission). BUT if I read another one when we meet again soon, things may start to click in more minds.
We must start working within our own corners to start waking men up, the ones who entered into marriage under the Blue-Pill mindset. Not so they get rid of their wives, but so they don’t have too.
@ar10
“Has anyone here even bothered speaking up in their church’s men’s group? Has anyone of you dared to read a Red-Pill inspired article from Dalrock or any other man in the manosphere to one of these groups?”
I have started a separate Bible study for other guys in my singles ministry. I explicitly state that it is not a standard bible study and is not the official view of the church. I offer real world examples directly off Roissy and Roosh and Rollo and Dalrock. The guys hate it, but they keep coming back. They are getting actual information about women and the church and how they interact. It has been very interesting to watch.
@Lib Arts Major
I wasn’t thinking of you when I wrote about the hard shell, but about the issue in general. I was trying to explain to you what the focus of the post was. Most of my readers don’t have this hard shell, but I think there is value for many in efforts like this in their attempts to break through to others.
There are no clean, easy answers, because the church and state have conspired to make honest marriage exceedingly difficult. You outlined two common responses further down in your comment, PUA and MGTOW. These aren’t my choice, and for obvious reasons the first isn’t an option for Christians. This leaves trying to minimize the risk of marriage or remaining celibate and foregoing children, and the latter bears a strong resemblance to MGTOW. I am on the minimize the risk side, but I also strongly believe that each man needs to make this choice for themselves. They will bear the risk, and they will reap the rewards. As another commenter noted some of practical responses fall pretty naturally from this post; avoid accepting badly clipped marriage at face value. Try to find a woman who hasn’t debased herself, or barring that one who is better off there than most. The woman can potentially help some with the legal/social aspect as well. Zippy noted recently that he insisted that his future wife agree that he was the head of the household, and that at the end the decisions came down to him. Very early in this blog I wrote a set of interview questions for a prospective wife. If you haven’t read that you might find some value there. More recently I described what I call the resigned loving patriarch perspective of a husband facing the insane legal incentives to wives. I’m not sure what more you are looking for from me. If I had more, I would offer it. I will certainly keep thinking on the issue. If you feel like I’ve left viable options unexplored feel free to point them out.
Some areas I haven’t focused on are legal agreements like prenups and expatriating and/or marrying a foreign bride and bringing her to the US. I don’t have any expertise in prenups but as I understand it they are of very limited value, and can in some cases make the situation worse by creating a false sense of security. Expatriating and marrying abroad seems like a good potential option, but even there you would really have to do your homework on the local culture and legal system. Similarly with bringing a wife to the US from overseas, with the added risk of exposing her to the toxic pro divorce culture and laws in the US. I’m not against any of these ideas, but I don’t have much to share there other than a warning to make sure you really know what you are doing.
Anon Reader has pointed out that simply adopting more alpha posture has been proven to change men physiologically. Learning game has value, even if it doesn’t “feel” real at first. This however doesn’t mean you have to become a PUA; game can be practiced without fornication, but for obvious reasons the men with the most experience tend to be PUAs. I’ve also argued strongly against making game the foundation for holding together a marriage.
“being a keeper of home, lover of husband and children.
They have no use for it.”
It pays more to use their sexuality for material gain. Their god is money.
The only reason they are in the church is to find a weak man ready to part with his cash for a temporary illusion,they have no intent to keep promises,no real spirituality at all.
Hence the Proverbs woman,rare as a ruby.Nothing new there,except “The law” has enforced monetary extraction from men at gunpoint.
They are proxy armed robbers in sheeps clothing,hence the arrogance you see.
As you say, if they had a genuine interest and a good Shepherd they could possibly improve their lives immensely.
The implications for a stable society come from both sexs.To desire sex w/o responsibility detracts from societies stability.
It’s become a game of brinksmanship,with only one side holding the nuclear option.
@Joseph,
Awesome. Any interesting results? What kind of push-back do they give you? Any land-mines to avoid in starting one of these?
freebird
What’s up anaon reader,you’re answering your own questions?
I was careless and neglected to include attribution. I’ve corrected that error in my most recent comment.
Here’s some reality: there is a difference between body,soul,and mind.
We keep his body and mind locked up.
Thank you for answering. Please continue: why should Dahmer’s body and mind have continued to be locked up after his religious conversion?
PUA’s seem to be leaning towards the idea that the 3 are one.That justifies self interest very nicely.Mars,calling Mars,we have a battlefield for you.
Are PUA’s the main cause for the debasement of marriage? Or are they a reaction to the debasement of marriage?
If they are the main or primary cause of the debasement of marriage, can you explain the means or mechanism involved? How exactly are they doing this thing?
If the PUA’s are not the primary or main cause of the debasement of marriage, then why bring them up on this thread?
Time for an old joke. A bartender has closed up for the night and is walking home, when he comes across one of his customers on his hands and knees, under a street light.
“Say, Joe, are you all right? What are you doing down there?”, says the bartender.
“Awwww, I’m juzzh lookin’ fer my car keys, thash all”, replies the drunk.
“Well, I don’t know if you should be driving, but I’ll help you look for them”, says the bartender tiredly.
So they look around on the ground for a while and find nothing.
After a few minutes, the tired bartender asks the drunk, “Look, Joe, are you sure that you dropped your keys here on this corner? Because I don’t see anything that looks at all like keys”.
“Oh, nah, I think they fell outta my pocket back down the block, closer to the bar”, mumbles the drunk.
Exasperated, the bartender stands up and demands, “Well, Joe, if you dropped your keys back down the block, why in the world are you looking for them down here on the corner, under a street light?”
The drunk slowly gets to his feet, looks the bartender in the eye, and belligerently replies, “I’m not stupid! S’ too dark back there to find anything! S’ heckofalot easier to look for them here, under the street light! Thas why!”
Seems to me a lot of people would rather spend time under the street light than actually solve a problem, by finding their car keys in the dark.
[D: Nailed it.]
Fascinating to watch.
Its a good thing that there are some folks feeling the friction of scripture being quoted, scripture has that effect on people. They simultaneously rant angrily about the small petty nature of the faith while vibrating at the molecular level because they are so angry (and afraid) and cannot figure out why.
Also, to those who are complaining about the use of scripture and some sort of moral superiority and theological pontifications etc….know this…..you are playing into the hands of a few colossal egos that like having things revolving wrong what they say and believe. Its not really the scripture that is bothering you, I don’t think, because that’s been here for a very long time, maybe since day one. Only when the Red Giants moved in and the gravity rippled across the rest of this here solar system did you notice the tide isn’t going in and out like it once did.
That old pebble in the pond thing is really easy to see when its things like entire sections of pavement being plunked into the water. But banning the big rocks is not necessary. Some of them are fascinating to read and offer excellent analysis, endlessly rerererererere-defining terms notwithstanding.
——————
You bet the value proposition is gone from marriage Dalrock, and the post is a great analogy.
@ar10308
You can’t claim it’s part of the church. It has be be a separate thing entirely. Also, I made sure that women were not invited. I also got guys interested by stating that I was going to show them real world examples of how women work. I have so far explained hypergamy and the SMP. They see it and understand it, but don’t like it. One guy has told me that he is very angry with me for having explained this. I told him he was putting women in a place in his life where God should have been and he needed to get over it. He is one of my staunchest supporters. The pastor has attempted to intervene and disband the group, but I informed him that this has no affiliation with the church and that I have made that clear at the beginning of every study. I also clearly define everything I say with scriptural examples.
Practical application is like crack for guys. They are addicted.
@Dalrock, agree with your above post %100.(as per usual)game is quite instructive for dealing with women.
It is not a substitute for Christianity,the Christian frame *used* to be the ultimate game,society would shore up the man’s position and the law would back him.
Those days appear to be long gone.
The best advice if a guy has to marry would be to incorporate his assets,so she has nothing to gain from him by leaving.She may gain from the next man,but at least the first man minimizes his losses.Personally I’ve chosen to remove myself from the unequal equation.No amount of preaching or Game is going to protect a man from secular lawz.
@ar10308
I will say that the church is actively trying to put this down. They removed our previous small group leader from leading our group after finding out he was attending my class. We don’t meet in a particular person’s home for this anymore because of that. We usually meet at a restaurant instead.
So young, so angry, damn this rap music!
As imperial powers have found out to their chagrin throughout history, it is never the conquest that presents the problem. It is the occupation. The problem, as always, that you can think in terms of love or you can think in terms of power. You cannot mix the two.
There are some people who are incapable of love, apparently so through some kind of defect akin to that of color-blindness. Others become incapable of love because they believe that their love entitles them to a response from the beloved which is never fully reciprocated. It is the bean-counters and nick-noticers (see, Dal, I read the original post) of love who usually end up somewhere close to this. Love, the Bible says, may not conquer all, but it bears all, and it does not keep close accounts.
Love between a man and a woman is stil possible, even in 2012. It will still be possible in 2055 even if we’re deep into Mad Max territory by then. It will be possible until Antichrist erects his throne, manifests hell on earth, and turns this world into the exploitative Sodom that even the most successful sluts and PUAs would recoil from. St Maximos said that our passions, our self-absorption, makes us opaque to ourselves. It does no good to blame women for not knowing, or hiding, what they really want. We don’t know any better.
I can’t speak to someone like Mark Minter’s pain, so I won’t try, but it sure doesn’t make sense to fold up your leaves just because there might be a fire someday. That there are fewer women of character abroad today I do not deny, and women’s characters are not that constant, but failing to filter on character and filtering on BMI, WHR, and cup size is total suicide if you want to go the husband-and-father route.
@anon reader-
“Please continue: why should Dahmer’s body and mind have continued to be locked up after his religious conversion?”
Because his soul is not his body nor mind.
His body now belongs to the State because he violated their God inspired laws.His soul belongs to God for judgment.
Even the law recognizes this during sentencing “May God have mercy upon your soul”-Because we are not,do not have to,not our job.
If he’s been wrongfully convicted he goes free in God’s eternity,if he’s guilty he goes to hell.This seems so basic as to not need explanation.
@Joseph,
Mind if I ask what kind of church you attend, what size and what region of the country? If it is a larger church, then you know you are on to something when they are actively trying to destroy it.
The enemy always reveals itself in anger when you get over the target. It is ironic that you have to change meeting places like the early church to avoid being discovered by those in power.
The Marines took it one step further:”Kill them all and let God sort them out.”
Seems a bit excessive,but then again it’s a result of calling Mars!
Beware the Venusian arts.No I don’t blame game for societies downfall,but it does not help to restore it either.It merely panders to the wrongful occupier of territory.
You see what the Italians did to Mussolini after the Nazi’s left,now you understand why. (hopefully)
@ar10308
I attend a Baptist Church in Jackson, MS. It has one main campus of roughly 5000 people and 3 satellite churches where they literally watch a video of the pastor from the main campus even sunday morning because he likes to maintain the same message across all the campuses. This is what he has been actively trying to prevent since he started this church. That’s why I don’t claim to be associated with the church. I have had to speak with my local campus pastor as he feels I am doing a disservice to the men in the group. I challenged him to show me where I got it wrong with scripture. He still hasn’t produced.
The problem is that the guys have started reading these blogs and they are catching on to the ideas fast. They have the same problems that most of us had. The worst part is they go through a period of mourning for their old way of life. We have become really good friends because of it though. I hope the momentum stays where it is.
“The enemy always reveals itself in anger when you get over the target. It is ironic that you have to change meeting places like the early church to avoid being discovered by those in power.”
Amen brother.
The truth is a revolutionary act during occupation by the father of all lies.
Interesting that bot God and satan are male figures,leads to the idea that women never lead either good nor bad.Look at uncle Joe Biden and the Pres carrying the water for the rad-fems.Look at the white and blue knights.
Woman *want* all they can get,and say so loudly,but it takes a man out front to lead,enable and empower them every time.They are not only the weaker vessel,they are often empty needing of proper filling.
Furious:
Men’s and women’s interests are at cross-purposes, sure. There are many ways this is the case: –men trade resources for sex
–women trade sex for resources or status or attention or various other tangible and intangible things
–men want to spread the seed as far and wide as possible with and into as many women as possible
–women want to get the best genes and the best resources (which don’t necessarily have to come from the same man).
–men use logic and reason to make decisions
–women use emotions and other friends’ opinions to make decisions
–sperm is cheap
–eggs are expensive
–Men sometimes don’t want to lead, but everyone is happier when they do
–Women want to lead despite God’s rule, but are unhappy when they get the chance to do it and fail when forced into it
The point of all this is for men to KNOW this and UNDERSTAND it, so they can make the best decisions for their lives. For some it means marriage. For those men, they need to know these things so they can lead as best they can. And they need to be prepared to walk away if they are not getting what they want or need from their marriages. They need to be prepared to say that they will lead and she will submit; and he will walk away if that is not sufficient. If she walks away and leaves the marriage, A single man needs to vet potential spouses hard, and walk away if he has any reasonable doubts.
The second point is for men and women to reach some form of resolution of the tension, to continue the dance, so that everyone at the dance who wants one gets a partner. This used to be resolved kind of like this: The way male-female relationships are supposed to work is that there is a slow dance between him and her. He asks her to dance, or more rarely, she asks him. They agree to dance. They spend some time feeling each other out and figuring out compatibility, likes, dislikes.
In the best case, she likes him, he likes her, he learns to lead, she happily agrees, and they keep dancing with each other. He gives up his right to dance with other girls and to ask others to dance. His obligation is to learn how to lead her on the dance floor, and to become the best dancer he can be. In exchange, he gets a permanent date to the dance, and when they dance, he gets to lead. Now, generally, he likes dancing more than she does. Sometimes she doesn’t want to dance, and if it’s ok with him because her feet are tired, he will let her rest. But as a general rule, she’s got to tango, hustle, jitterbug, meringue or cha-cha with him if he wants to. If he wants to dance, they dance.
She gets a permanent date to the dance too. She gets someone who will lead her so she doesn’t have to figure it all out on her own. This is a biggie for girls: she also gets to not be the girl who gets left at home without a date to the dance. She also gets to go to the dance and show herself off to the other girls, since that’s what she really wants anyway.
But she has to give up some things too. She gives up her right to dance with all the boys (there’s a lot more boys who want to dance with her than girls who want to dance with him). She also doesn’t get to change partners in the middle of the dance. She doesn’t get to quit dancing with him just because he isn’t the best dancer or the best leader or has the nicest suit or paid the most for the tickets. He’s the one she picked, and he’s the one she kept dancing with. So the rule is that she needs to stay with him. She has to dance with the man who took her to the dance and bought her corsage and paid for the gas and the dinner beforehand. “Dance with the one that brung ya” and all that.
Everyone who wants a partner will have to give up something.
ar10308
We must start working within our own corners to start waking men up, the ones who entered into marriage under the Blue-Pill mindset. Not so they get rid of their wives, but so they don’t have too.
This approach seems to me to be most likely to produce results under the given circumstances. Although I would amend the second sentence to read Not so they get rid of their wives, but so their wives don’t get rid of them based on the divorce statistics in every denomination in the US.
I believe that spreading the various truths about women, marriage, divorce, etc. in small groups, one on one, at the personal level will be more useful than any grand attempts to form any national organizations. It also seems to me to be more likely to succeed than overt, in his face, confrontation with any pastor. Because one man – even Cane Caldo – can be dismissed as “unschooled” or “not Bible centered” or “bitter” or “a crank”, etc. But if 10% of the men in a church come to grips with the basic aspects of hypergamy, and all that flows from it – sexless marriage, cheating wives, divorce theft, etc. then that should make a difference. It should slow down and eventually halt pedestalization by the leaders of small groups, for a start.
Imagine if Pastor GirlPower got up and started yet another Father’s Day “Man UP!” shaming sermon, and 1/3 of the married men stood up, and led their wives and children out the door, just for that day. I suspect that would get some attention, starting with “Hey! Where are you guys going?” from the podium. But that can’t happen so long as too many men are not wearing the glasses.
@ar10308
Iron Rule of Tomassi #6
Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.
This has by far been the toughest thing for them to face. One of the really interesting things I have noticed is one guy in my group named Russell. He is manic depressive and has trouble holding down a job. He is DESPERATE for a girlfriend but he repels women with vitriol. He has actively turned from looking for support from a girl and instead has turned to the guys in the group. I think he is actively becoming a real human being before my eyes, and it took getting women off the pedestal to accomplish it.
Following the dance metaphor-“The Law” tells her she can saw off his legs and take them home with her whilst she dances with a new man every night.
Off topic, real dancing these days is compromised of the fem wearing a thong and grinding with many men on a foam filled floor where she could have sex if she desired that,yet be protected by men if she did not.The Bf she brought along as security *thinks* she’s going home with him,but he’s already shown he’s not alpha materiel.
It’s rough job for the gals to both encourage male aggression whilst asking to be protected from it.
Patently unfair,as it reduces men to servile animals.(the agenda)
@Spacetraveller from 06:33
The men have done a prime job of already addressing this, but I felt it polite and respsonsible to answer you personally.
You refer to a 28 year-old virgin Physician as one who should be “commended and not criticized in any way.”
Commended? For what?
For doing what God told her to do by remaining chaste as a single woman? Do we get a Gold Star from God just for waking up and doing what we’re supposed to do anyway? Ha! I’d like a Gold Star today from God because I haven’t cheated on my husband! Do you think He will honor that?
For doing what scores of men have been doing for much of history (achieving the rank of Physician)? She deserves to be put on a pedestal because she’s a FEMALE physician? AND a virgin? I think not.
I suggest that unless she can state VERY clearly when God specifically and precisely called her to be a chaste, single woman and a missionary physician FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE…
…she has been in idolatry of her career, her education and her “self”, and will have an incredibly difficult time submitting to and bonding to a husband later in life, if she is just biding her time ’till her Prince saves her from her career. She will likely not WANT to give up the independence and power that her career affords her. She may have incredible difficulty conceiving a child, and if she does, the likelihood that she will be able to give this child the gift of siblings is questionable. She will likely earn more than her husband, which will invariably cause her to disrespect him, even subconsciously.
A female physician who stops working mid-career has taken countless monetary resources from MEN who aspired to be physicians. Period.
Even if she “goes back to work” after her children are of school-age, who wants a physician with less experience? I don’t. I want one who has dedicated his life to medicine.
An actual question posed as an article at the mangina project:”How can a young guy respectfully grind with a girl on the dance floor?”
My response was that she’s fomenting male aggression,Rebekka took great offense and denied that.
@AR and anyone else who’s listening
Imagine if Pastor GirlPower got up and started yet another Father’s Day “Man UP!” shaming sermon
Job One should be taking back the pulpits. Female clergy, it goes without saying….
I don’t think men are wanting a Disney fairy tale.
Speaking for myself, I want to be taken at face value.
I want women to be honest and (most of the time) say what they mean, and mean what they say.
I want women to honor the commitments they make. I want a framework of incentives for women who do; and a set of pressures, consequences and penalties for women who don’t.
I want women to make their choices and live with them with grace, dignity and humility.
If she chooses marriage, I want her to stay in it absent the most dire of circumstance. I want her to enjoy its benefits with happiness and bear its burdens with good cheer.
If she chooses career, I want her to not complain about it and write articles for newspapers and monthly magazines talking about how great her life is. Perhaps hers is great because she is a rich, connected, better than average looking, famous journalist/author. But the average woman reading her article in the same boat as she is is not having a great life.
If she chooses the carousel, I want her to not bitch about it when she is 30 with an abortion and a couple of STDs under her belt, and can’t find an attractive man to offer a ring and a date.
Exactly ezra,my female doc refused to take her husbands name and I’m certain she’s had multiple affairs even though she has a son and daughter by him.
He’s a standby provider of the same economic class,no more,no less.
Dalrock, I suggest that you make the “interviewing a wife” links, the “resigned patriarch” link and the “game is not a foundation for marriage” links a permanent object either on the sidebar or the top bar. Those postings are among the most useful discussions of the marriage situation to be found anywhere, and they should be easy to spot by any new reader when they first access your site. it would save time, and answer questions, and do good for men from the teens to the 60’s.
Don’t hide those good thoughts away, put them where they can be found by any casual searcher.
[D: Thank you. I’m limited in what I can do by the format but I should be able to make this happen in one form or another. I’ll give it some thought.]
“Imagine if Pastor GirlPower got up and started yet another Father’s Day “Man UP!” shaming sermon”
My husband and I were at a former church once when the Pastor said he was doing a two-part series on the roles of men and women in marriage. He spoke a bit, and then handed the pulpit to his wife to teach the women the role of the wife in marriage. I think it would have been more effective had he taught the women with masculine authority; he could have left his wife’s role for teaching the women in the church in the absence of the men (in a small group, or one on one), so that she wasn’t also “teaching” men in the general congregation.
The following Sunday, he arose to teach on men’s role. I was so excited to hear what he would say, and then he just cratered. His sermon was pablum; his delivery weak. No authority. A menagerie of cute little jokes about how he “couldn’t have a Corvette” because he’s married, and he’s got to think of his wife. At the end, the deacons handed out “Dad’s Root Beer” 20 oz. to every man (Dad) in the service. Ugh.
@Joseph,
“The problem is that the guys have started reading these blogs and they are catching on to the ideas fast. They have the same problems that most of us had. The worst part is they go through a period of mourning for their old way of life. We have become really good friends because of it though. I hope the momentum stays where it is.”
It must happen. It is a good thing. It has happened to many of us and we are better for it. The death of a lie means the truth can live.
@freebird
“The truth is a revolutionary act during occupation by the father of all lies.”
That is epic. Such a brilliant description.
@asinusspinasmasticans,
You can’t take the pulpit unless you take the Congregation first. You must take the men in order to take the Congregation.
freebird: Regarding female physicians, I think it may be difficult to find one who is actually HOME enough to attend to her husband. They work ridiculous hours. I would think affairs are commonplace in medicine for this reason, although statistically, I have no proof.
I have yet to meet a female in the medical field that is NOT a feminist. Nurse, physician, whatever. UNLESS they are foreign born and foreign raised, and also foreign educated. And even this is rare.
This career inherently gives a woman a feeling of power and superiority, and places her on a pedestal, just as traveller did earlier by suggesting we should “commend” her just for being a chaste female Doctor!
@freebird,
“Off topic, real dancing these days is compromised of the fem wearing a thong and grinding with many men on a foam filled floor where she could have sex if she desired that,yet be protected by men if she did not.The Bf she brought along as security *thinks* she’s going home with him,but he’s already shown he’s not alpha materiel.”
Not if you know where to look. Most cities have a Swing Dance/Lindy Hop scene. I’ve recently gotten involved in it in my city and it has been great for meeting women. I get at least 2 numbers every Friday-night dance.
The best part is the Swing Dancing REQUIRES male leadership, so you learn a lot about how to do it AND the better you are at it, the more the girls like dancing with you.
Furious:
I’m not the biggest fan of the “whither Susan Walsh” comments. I’ve finally learned to accept HUS for what it is: a site advocating strategies for female middle class and upper middle class coeds and recent graduates between 18 and 30 from the East Coast seeking to navigate the SMP without getting pumped and dumped by cads. That’s what asinus means when he talks about Susan fighting a different battle on a different field.
Anonymous Reader: I believe that spreading the various truths about women, marriage, divorce, etc. in small groups, one on one, at the personal level will be more useful than any grand attempts to form any national organizations.
I believe this as well, and think that Joseph’s efforts as described thus far are quite interesting. In fact, Joseph, do you have a rough plan, say a list of blogposts that you are following in a certain order, and are you keeping notes on what is working, what should probably have been introduced differently, the relevant scriptural references, and different objections you are facing and how you are overcoming them? Something like that could become quite an interesting syllabus – even just a list of blogpost links with notes and references.
The best advice if a guy has to marry would be to incorporate his assets,so she has nothing to gain from him by leaving.
That is one method, although it mainly covers pre-marital assets, and there are ways around it. I would also suggest studying various expat strategies (PT, Five Flags, etc.), as many of the actions taken to insulate your arse and assets from predatory governments can apply to predatory women as well, since they rely on the force of the state. Even if one does not intend to expat, the information and different thinking can give hints and ideas that you might not have thought of otherwise. Just beware of snake oil salesmen in that field. Caveat emptor.
@jg/jg1
The “M” in that comment above is not the “M” on Good Strong Men (I know, cause the “M” over there is me).
Yes, I’m a Mormon feminist with a PhD.
I also agree with Dalrock’s premise in this post – that having tons of sexual partners “debases” a woman’s “value” (if you’re going with the monetary analogy here). And that if you don’t teach your children any better, going off to college to “sow their wild oats” can indeed ruin their prospects of a happy life/marriage.
One of the things I like about Mormonism is the emphasis on valuing marriage and not having premarital/extramarital sexual partners. One of the things I value about my education is that it allows me to provide a good life for my children while lessening the burden on my husband to foot the bill for the bunch of us. I don’t think it’s something that all women should/must do….but I like that I get to.
@empath
Can you explain this paragraph, please?
While I’m at it (since I’ve mostly been a lurker on this blog, but have been commented about in effigy), I have a question for Dalrock (if he has the time and/or inclination to answer, which I understand he may not).
What would you make of what I could call a “Mormon model” of college education for girls?
It looks like this:
Leave home at 18, go to college (preferably a church school because they’re “safe”).
Get married when the opportunity presents itself (as long as the guy goes to church and has SOME plan for earning a living).
Presumably you’re now married for “time and eternity” – per the LDS marriage ceremony. You can’t cancel the permanence of that ordinance unless the Salt Lake bigwigs approve your “sealing cancellation.”
Have babies/finish school, sometimes both at the same time.
Pursue career only if child-friendly, which frequently means not at all.
Face EXTREME social stigma for divorce – prohibitions against remarrying in an LDS temple, for example. Stay married.
This model is what produces “Mormon feminists” – many of whom marry and raise a family (usually larger than the US norm), work at some point along the way, etc. I’m not trying to argue that these cases disprove anything in your post, I’d just like to know what you make of them.
5 stars, Dalrock. This is one of your best posts yet.
[D: Thank you.]
Em, 12:34 pm Oct 9:
What is “feminist” about that? The education? A woman who is educated is not necessarily a feminist. To me, feminism connotes a mindset, not a set of credentials.
@ freebid
PUA: Prick Up Ass
Sorry, didn’t mean to say that the model itself is feminist. Just that somehow, most of the women I know who call themselves “Mormon feminists” are a product of that model.
I just wonder what folks think of it, since it’s not what most people imagine is “normal” for Mormon women.
@BC
I could do a rough outline of what I’m covering, but my powerpoint slides are at home. I started by promising to explain how women operate in the real world and get rid of the mystery surrounding them and how they act. I explained hypergamy and gave a few examples from scripture such as Eve and Ruth. I grounded everything in real world examples of how to display higher SMV through pre-selection. I have also been taking them through several of Rollo’s posts as well as University of Man.
My goal is that once they understand how women work, I intend to show them how to navigate working around women with what I call a “Biblical frame”. Basically, God made you a man and you have a divine right (because God said so) to lead a relationship. If she doesn’t submit, then you can safely move on or call her on her sin (In the case of a wife). From there, it will be onto Dalrock to show them how the world really works and just what an effect feminism and our lack of diligence in Church has led to these attrocities (by attrocities I mean the 50 million abortions). There is no sugar coating. I would be happy to do a post on exactly what I intend to do and I may make a youtube video series on it with slides to walk everyone through it.
It’s just me doing what I can to the best of my ability. I don’t pretend to have a grasp on the subject matter like Rollo or Dalrock, but it’s something.
Em,
Like deti, I don’t see anything particularly feminist about your agenda. I know as much about Mormonism as I do about Zoroastrianism, but if “normal” Mormon women view what you have described as fire-breathing feminism then they must be very gentle souls indeed.
Unless I am mistaken, Mormonism has no ‘clergy’ per se, but I don’t remember ever meeting a female stake president.
It amuses me that nervous, snap-haters must resort to my commentary in different contexts and other conversations to find irrelevant material, and then they think they can distract themselves from their failure by offering it as evidence against my assertions about completely different matters.
Talk about derailing the thread. I will not lower myself to defend against the charges of a bruised little man seeking material for a PC show trial, except to say this. I am not a racist, but I side with the racists. If your guilt-by-association instinct commands you to condemn me along with the racists, so be it. Fine distinctions are obviously not your strong suit: it is folly to meet a witch hunt with mere rhetoric, as though evidence and syllogism and examination of context were relevant to such a proceeding.
Being called racist is like being called anathema or heretical during the era of faith, only without the theological consistency of your typical inquisitor. I will not fall for it. I will not allow wisdom to be rejected wholesale, in myself or in racists, just because some enterprising nitpicker searched through a paper pile to — aha! — find a shadow of a hint of heresy against your plaster multiculti gods. This is precisely analogous to feminists who cry “sexist!” to shut down their opponents. Keep your resentment in the cheap seats. Men are in debate here.
What do you know about my Christianity? Your yardstick of a man’s faith measures me against politically correct pieties rather than the Word of God. And when we who know our faith cite that word of God, still more haters crawl out of the woodwork, wielding weasel words like “churchian” and “christianese” in lieu of an argument.
By the grace of God I strive to illumine the darkness of the furthest corners of this dank beta gathering place. You scurrying little roaches do not impress. You regard ressentiment as a sacred right, and I am here to either convert you or stomp out your guts for it.
Matt
@Em:
Your term isn’t an actual “Feminist”; the term you are using is a social way of being acceptable to “normal Feminists” while having an attempt to keep your Religion. It’s a phrase designed to allow you to fit in with a larger group of women, since maintaining Religious practice is actually threatening to the non-Religious. (That’s a discussion for another time)
But what you are describing is simply a “Mormon MRS. Degree”. A classic that’s been around for 100 years or so. It’s a solid path for a highly capable woman and gives the family a great deal more flexibility in life, but the risk are pretty obvious, I would hope.
Em:
I actually quite like the model. But it works in this society only if you have a worthy woman pretty well inoculated against the real radical feminism, groupthink, follow-the-herd mentality, and culture rot. A woman going out to college, on her own, unsupervised, for months at a time, is marinated in feminist doctrine. A woman then gets out of college and goes to work, where she receives and internalizes even more feminism.
It occurs to me the woman is this way because she has all this freedom with minimal responsibility. If she wants it, she can have the run of the men at college and at her entry-level job, while answering to no one. She doesn’t really have to take care of a place or pay bills or do anything but manage herself.
But if she is in college and married, she has freedom with concomitant responsibility.
It wasn’t a typo, but on second thought that should really be “Prick Up! Ass…”
(zlzolzzol)
@Looking Glass
the risk are pretty obvious, I would hope.
You have to be good looking enough to snag a Mormon alpha. I wonder if Em would have thrown that advanced degree away on the soft-bellied, neckbearded, MagicTheGathering-playing jack Mormon my son hangs out with, who claims he stopped going to ward meetings because the Mormon girls there were only interested in the tall, athletic guys.
Excellent post… Describes the problem clearly – everyone deals with the after-math in their own way…
Joseph,
What you are doing sounds incredible. You made my day by sharing it, and I’m guessing I’m not the only one who feels this way. Thank you. I think your idea of a youtube video is very good as well.
I can’t speak for Rollo but what you describe is how I see this blog. I’m doing what I can and taking care not to do anything which might cause harm. Part of the latter for me is allowing a very free flow of ideas in the discussion. It can at times get out of hand, but for the most part I think it has to be very open especially as we are working through new ideas. I know I have certainly learned more from the readers of the blog than I have taught, and I learn a great deal from other bloggers as well.
@ Ezra,
Well, thank you for your response!
Whilst I ‘get’ your indignation at the thought of ‘bigging’ up a woman who has gone far with her studies and/or career and still managed to avoid the carousel, I should explain my position better.
The point is that we are inondated with women doing the wrong thing. And here is an example of a woman doing something that most men (even here on this blog) would not turn their noses at.
And you, a woman, is finding something to complain about…
Now I KNOW you don’t mean to be mean about it. You do have some valid points afterall, and I accept them.
But you should realise that this blog exists because its owner feels the need to write about women who he knows or has heard of who are far worse than this woman who ‘M’ describes.
If there is a young woman who is lurking here to have some idea as to what constitutes a good role model, I would say, this example by ‘M’ is it.
Yes, I understand that this woman may not be up to your very high standards of femininity. She MAY not be the type to be ‘pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen’ and all that. But something tells me she may well be…ya know?
In any case she is hardworking. She is modest enough to stay a virging past her teens.
I wouldn’t recommend that she pat HERSELF on the back if I knew her. But I would do the patting on her back on her behalf. Because if I have a daughter one day, this is one of the models I would like her to follow. Sure, the best ideal is the young woman who is ready to marry (at age 20), her first ever boyfriend…
But the next best thing failing that is to have an education and get a good job. Yes, whilst waiting for a good husband to show up (and keeping chaste in the meantime).
Is it really that hard for you to accept that this is a good strategy for a modern woman to follow?
Am I being ‘entitled’ on behalf of a woman who is ‘doing it right’?
I would be the FIRST to “condemn” those who are doing it wrong.
But as women, you and I should be the first to encourage those who are doing it right.
This gesture is not to make their heads swell. It is simply to encourage them to continue the good they are doing. And it is good for others to see someone being lauded for something good for a change, as opposed to the empty vessels out there who get all the publicity.
The men here are suffering from a lack of this kind of woman who works hard and is keeping her legs crossed.
All I am saying is, when such a woman is encountered, it iS a rare event.
But we don’t want this type of woman to continue to be rare. She should be commonplace.
How can we have more of the same? Praise the good behaviour and reject the bad.
You ask me if you should be given a gold star for not cheating on your husband?
Yes. (At least mentally give yourself one).
There are many women who ARE cheating on their husbands. Those women should be ashamed of themselves.
Should this young woman be commended for her good behaviour?
Yes.
There are many women her age (and unmarried) who are not chaste.
Believe it or not, Ezra, I am with you on the high standards issue.
But let me tell you that if the good in society is not ‘bigged up’, those who are pushing for bad behaviour will continue to win because they have the loudest voice.
If something is even remotely worthy of praise, say it.
OK, the fact that she is a physician may not appeal to you. Fine. I understand.
But her virginity at age 28?
That’s commendable. Say it.
If you wish to add that in addition to her hard work and her virginity there is something else she ought to be doing to enhance her femininity, by all means say that too!
But don’t knock her obviously good attributes, please. Don’t say she is denying a male doctor his chance at a career. That exasperates me a bit. In fact it depresses me.
Do forgive the rather emotional rant. Look, I am all for men finding good wives. This woman is a good candidate for that. Don’t bash her…
Save your harsh words for the sluts and careerist sex-pos fembots.
Remember that we are not living in a ‘normal’ world these days. You and I cannot pretend we are living in the 1960s where general standards were higher than they are today.
We have to adjust our mindset a bit to suit what we face in society today. A little effort SHOULD be praised. Because frankly, there are many who don’t even bother try. This woman IS trying.
It is not about gold stars and bragging rights, at the end of the day. It is about being clear as to what is good or bad.
And I daresay, compared to many other women out there, I would take this 28 year old woman as an example of ‘good’ anyday…
So yeah, I WOULD praise her.
Even if I don’t know her and praising her doesn’t get me any personal reward.
Except of course that I feel all warm inside for doing it.
🙂
freebird, thanks for responding to my question about Dahmer.
Some things need to be spelled out, because in doing so unspoken assumptions and premises can be discovered. “It goes without saying” is not always true.
@Dalrock
Thanks, It was never my intent to share this. I started the Bible study so that we could actually study the Bible, but I know for a fact the guys in this group have a very distorted view of this subject. I started with this topic because it was an instant hook. The guys love talking about it because it provides them with a sense of sanity from actually understanding what is happening around them.
I think this topic is central to becoming a man of God. We as men are so ill-equipped to deal with what is thrown at us in church it is ridiculous. It’s only 10 to 12 of us. The funny part is that they have begun acting differently around the girls in our singles group and the girls don’t understand what is up. Several of the women have commented that something is up (one actually said she approved of the difference). I hope this leads to some pride from the men in that they carry the image of God, and maybe take that job seriously.
EM
This makes sense to me, with a few caveats which I’ll get into below. I think I’ve mentioned before that my wife and I married while she was a freshman. She worked part time, I worked full time, and together we put her through college without going into debt (and with some help on the cost of books from her parents). I knew it was important for her to graduate, so even before we married this became a high priority for me.
In the end our example doesn’t really matter one way or another, but that is what we did. I think it was M above who assumed that I was arguing against women going to college, which I was not. I’m also not against women working; this is something the couple should work out on their own (with the husband serving the biblical role of headship if they are Christian, and for practical reasons I would argue even if not Christian). My primary objections are the prioritization of college and career over marriage, but then pretending marriage was a priority after the fact. You can see this in M’s rambling post. At one point she asks something to the effect of “what if the woman doesn’t have a proposal at high school graduation”? This evades the point that nearly all young women today aren’t looking for a husband at this time, they are looking to date and have fun. No proposal is in the offering because they weren’t looking for one. If one were offered, it would be rejected of hand by nearly all of the women in question. My other objection is what I term “playing career woman”. This is women getting educated and establishing a career simply to check off the feminist box (get the merit badge) before marrying and becoming a stay at home or works part time/for fun wife and mother. This is different than a woman who knows she wants a career and sticks with it, and it is different than a woman who works to support herself while earnestly looking for a husband. The former isn’t something I would advise for the vast majority of women, but those who do it honestly have my respect. The Marie Antoinette game of playing high powered worker rubs me the wrong way, and is very costly from many angles.
Caveats:
1) The Christian wife should take care in her life path to not be at odds with the biblical commands of marriage. If she plans her life in such a way that she will almost certainly end up not being willing or able to submit to her husband she isn’t honoring this, even if the details themselves appear right.
2) You had me before “Mormon Feminist”. Perhaps this is related to caveat #1.
3) I think we need to be very careful not to stigmatize women who don’t follow the college/career path. I’ve seen otherwise very traditional Christians voice surprising disdain for wives and mothers who don’t earn the merit badge.
@Lookingglass
“But what you are describing is simply a “Mormon MRS. Degree” ” I guess, if you say so. Again, within the whole spectrum produced by the Mormon university system, I’m talking about a sub-group of women who have pursued advanced degrees, become recognized in their fields, AND reared a gaggle of children. Not really “Mrs. Degree”-types.
@deti
“But it works in this society only if you have a worthy woman pretty well inoculated against the real radical feminism, groupthink, follow-the-herd mentality, and culture rot.” That’s actually why I think that “Mormon feminist” isn’t as much of an oxymoron as people think. The self-classified Mormon feminists I know all resemble the “let’s let women work outside the home and vote” feminists more than the “abortion has no negative consequences and is entirely my entitlement” radical feminists. Mormons encourage early marriage – which means early responsibility to keep you out of trouble during college years. They’re also heavy on the self-reliance/accepting responsibility for yourself angles. Which again helps – if you’re working two jobs to pay tuition, there’s less time for partying. And if you’re living Mormon teachings, you won’t be drinking.
@asinusspinasmasticans
“I wonder if Em would have thrown that advanced degree away on the soft-bellied, neckbearded, MagicTheGathering-playing jack Mormon my son hangs out with, who claims he stopped going to ward meetings because the Mormon girls there were only interested in the tall, athletic guys.” Nope, not so much. Not because he wasn’t attractive but because he’s making excuses for why he doesn’t go to church. I can only speak for myself, though, not all of Mormon-woman-dom.
@Dalrock
Thanks for the answer!
“I think we need to be very careful not to stigmatize women who don’t follow the college/career path. I’ve seen otherwise very traditional Christians voice surprising disdain for wives and mothers who don’t earn the merit badge.” I agree. I have no druthers about what women should/should not do with regards to career path, as long as they’ve actively chosen it for themselves (i.e., can explain to themselves why they’re working toward that goal with some answer other than “It’s what they told me to do next.”). I think a SAHM who works hard at educating her kids has just as much right in that choice as I do in mine.
@ Dalrock
I’ll go back and read the links you posted. In regards to caution and marriage / relationships – there has been enough. Seeing four divorces in the family in the last 20 years happen to every member of my immediate family except me has done its job well to make me cautious.
Your OP is of course dead on that marriage has been debased and eroded over the years, and I do not expect any easy answers to just magically appear to this dilemma. As noted, the alternatives presented to me by and large from the Manosphere have been insufficient or unacceptable for a variety of reasons – some of which you touched on.
Speaking mainly to “game” however, I wrote a fairly extensive explanation of game in my own terms once before (not on this site) and safe to say while I won’t get into it here, I can appreciate the reflective philosophy at the core of game. By reflecting long and hard on what you are, you can begin to understand what you are not, and then expand / contract parts of your external identity’s “shape” in order to accomplish goals, acclimate to situations, etc. More simply put, a Chameleon must first know what color it was born to know what color it must become to accomplish its goal of hunting, evading predators, etc…
Without going on a long tangential explanation, my point is that doing this (changing color or shape, adapting yourself to certain situations) eventually reaches a breaking point when it begins to infringe on someone’s core. Compromise the core enough and you’ve lost who you were in the first place. This is the point where I must deride game. We all wear masks, but wear too many too often and you will eventually forget who you are and devalue / debase yourself in the process – even if you were trying to use game to get around debased marriage.
@anon reader-welcome.
I will add the God,through the Bible,has expressed a pro death penalty viewpoint.Often these crimes occur out of the secular idea that there is no life after death,this justifies a disregard for fellow human beings in a narcissistic type manner.A callous disregard if you will.I did not say that very clearly.Humans,w/o the concept of something bigger and greater than themselves tend to act in a self absorbed manner with less or no regard for consequences.It is an animal type arrogance,to believe we are simply self aware animals.This is why the attempts to explain hypergamy by animal mating strategies rubs wrong.We are thinkers,we should be able to use mind over genitalia to control those animals urges,for self interest if nothing else.Justifying hypergamy,the concept that women can self abase for momentary pleasure because “they are not in control of themselves” is a major copout and self justification of bad deeds that are not justifiable for a person with self aware agency and accountability.
Perhaps it is the modern lack of community that tells folks the past will never be known,that they can manipulate then move on to do it again with no consequences.These folks have no anchor,no foundation,no community.As I’ve said before,whether a person believes in God or not,they cannot deny that the concepts and methods therein promote a healthier and more responsible society.
That’s why religion is so popular,it benefits the community at large.It’s been so successful that it could be argued that the 3 major religions have been distilled over time to the “One God” for Muslims,Jews and Christian,due to this success.The basic principles are all the same,the methods and outcome predictable.The problems come when special interest groups seek an unfair advantage over others at a cost to society,they invariably must corrupt or misinterpret these religions because these religions give a fair hand to all productive/non-destructive demographics.When you see a group rail against religion you can be sure they are thieves of some sort or other.Some folks destroy just for kicks,feminism is a bit of both,they seek to occupy,infiltrate,subvert secular law as well as God’s law for their supremacist agenda.
Femathiest is back promoting male genocide in the name of global peace.She simply wants ultimate unchecked power and would say anything to justify it,why she even says the ends justify the means and the means justify the ends.Organized religion prohibits these actions for the good of all.
@Ezra, yeah my female doc is a feminist,she pulls young women through her office in training sessions that are uncomfortable to patients,to get them on the fastest track to the MD degree,not with the idea of learning how to be a good doctor.Something must have happened to stop her,I have not seen these ‘interns’ lately.
She never once had a male intern.She’s a contrarian and impossible to talk to, a bad quality in a doc.
I keep her on because most of the male doctors are self absorbed assholes,my one good male doc got in trouble and is very quiet these days.
The day of the compassionate doc is gone,they best you can hope for is to not be mistreated too badly.It’s all about the money.
Nothing but the money.Sometimes I fantasize that if I had a large envelope of cash to kickback,maybe then the doc would learn to listen.(like a prostitute.)The male docs I fantasize about beating their asses into submission so maybe then they would listen-respect my humanity.So you can see,I’m not just against female bad behavior,sometimes the men are worse,sometimes better.With nurses it’s a tossup with men coming out slightly ahead,with doc I actually gotta give the gals the better grade for behavior but less on knowledge,but knowledge w/o the will to act upon it is useless.
On the other hand willing to act upon emotion is a bad deal w/o the knowledge behind it,but at least a guy can get a tiny bit of care.especially if he games his female doc.Yes, it’s true female docs respond to game greatly.Sad to say a patient has to look good and be confident to get decent care,the exact opposite of what happens when one is sick.But that is the way it is.
I honestly don’t know why people here are choosing to interact with that non-entity which styles itself as “Matt King”. It is and always has been a troll and provocateur, and it looks down on each and every one of you from its self-assured smug “Christian Alpha” perch. The main difference between itself and Cane is that it is smarter.
Em —
You’re talking about the Mormon University system. In a non-Mormon University setting, the overwhelming majority of women in colleges are behaving in a debased way, and that’s the subject matter of the OP. In the broader culture, including the broader “Christian” culture outside a handful of very small, radical Christian colleges, the culture is debased, and most of the women (and men, too) who go through the university system are also debased. I was there and I saw it. The Mormons at my university in California avoided it by specifically deciding to avoid the mainstream pretty much at all costs, and more of the Mormon men were successful at it than the Mormon women were, at least based on my observations of them at the time.
Education costs money and traditionally the amount of education available in any country was finite; it thus made sense for the majority of the education to go to men, and it still does: the reason there is a shortage of Dentists where I am is because the female dentists give up their careers to have babies, thus forcing us to recruit from eastern europe which thus causes those countries untold difficulties. In fact there are no more women in full time work here now than a century ago – part-time work is a woman’s preferred option – something no man would ever consider, even as a matter of self respect.
When it comes to marriage, men are the purchasers. An ordinary girl could secure a decent offer [marriage 1] from a suitable guy. Marriage 1. has been obsoleted by Marriage 2, which effectively means that the guy is expected to pay more for the same product on a sort of lend-lease basis rather than outright purchase. Now it turns out that the product isn’t even the latest model but is some ten or twenty years past its sell by date. The man not only thinks the price too high for the product but is not sure he now wants the product anyway. A year or two back an even older version of the product was trying to interest me in the product by promissing deep-throating and anal on the first date. I was both disgusted and not tempted. My rejection ‘offended her as a woman’ – she of course is the proud possessor of two degrees. Need I say more.
I know a few “Mormon Feminists” and they irritate me almost as badly as secular ones.
They are essentially cafeteria feminists, picking and choosing what beliefs their religion allows them too – i.e. feminism without approval for abortion and fornication.
In other words, they still buy into the lies all other kinds of feminists promote – that women were oppressed and abused by “Patriarchy” and that prior to feminism, they were not “allowed” to go to college and have careers.
Many of them also certainly wear the pants in their marriages…especially if they married the typical Mormon beta.
FuriousFerret says:
October 9, 2012 at 10:11 am
Your post is spot on FF; spot on.
————————————————————————————————————————-
I do view man and women relationships as being adversarial. As Rollo has tried to demonstrate women will never love a man like we want them to. [Scripture approves of you and Rollo: different words are you used for man’s love of wife and wife’s love for husband].
We are seen as a resource, an accessory to her life. Also, this isn’t inherently bad, it just is. This is the very essensce of the red pill. Men even guys on her still want to believe in fairy tale love. This just doesn’t exist.
Most children will not love their parents as their parents love them. The same goes for wives, they just can’t understand nor love their husbands as their husband love them.
Futhermore, I can’t find any mention in the bible where disney type of love between man and woman is supposed to exist. Mutual submission is a joke, so is mutual love. Why is so hard to accept the reality? I don’t even think this is a bad thing. It just is.
I you want a good woman you have to conquer her. If you want a good relationship YOU have to take charge and control it. She is not going to help you. You have to take the responsibility and see it through. That’s why it’s adversarial because I don’t expect her to make it work. It’s adversial because love is conditional for most women and if you want a high quality women, the onus is on you to pass all her shit test and condtions and succeed. And even after that if you fall out of favor, it’s curtains for you.
If you can’t understand that I don’t think you fully have accepted women’s true nature.
———————————————————————————————————————–
Mr. King, don’t even waste your time defending yourself.
Speak your mind.
Modern speech, denounces with “ics” and “ists” condemns any who dare offer contrary views.
“Look what he said; buuurrrnnn him!!!!”
What is emerging is the shift in the Marriage Zone, not a movement along its line . When the Solomon chart was made 2 years ago what was shown was that the marriage zone hits at the moment the woman’s value crosses the man’s.
The non-recovery “recovery” taking place in the US has shift the marriage zone rightward, to the point where now it is firmly that a man’s access must be SIGNIFICANTLY above a womans, while hers must be in terminal decline.
This is especially disastrous for the white UMC girls, who already expect to marry significantly above, even in the era of the 50% unemployment for university grads. This shift has now caused white UMC women to put off marriage until WELL into their declining fertility years (the 6 year degree is getting quite common) 2 years of work minimum, 2 years of courtshit.
Hello 30.
This means that given white UMC propensity for overuse of birth control, hidden abortions from daddy and the past, they aren’t even STARTING to have kids until 32.
So long white UMC. 🙂
welcome back Brendan, please dont leave again. I know you didnt mean too but thats when Matt that asshat showed up.
Joseph
You are a great man doing great things. You are what i had in mind commenting on this blog on the subject of christian game. Nothing to do with being a PUA just a man sharing the truth with other men and adding scripture to back it up. Beautiful. You have really showed me something that I need to think about.
Dalrock I think you have finally struck gold and the last few commenters male and female are very thoughtful. I sent you an e-mail dated 10-1. Looks like a good day Dalrock a turning point.
tbc says:
October 8, 2012 at 1:23 pm
“There has been in my opinion, a slow and steady degradation of the commentary on this blog in the last few days/weeks.”
It’s the churchians. Although they have nothing to say, they take forever saying it.
Darlock,
I think this has been asked before. With the debasement of marriage, it is only logical for any man, Christian or not, to never pursue marriage. So what is your suggestion to Christian men who intend to marry today?
@Brendan
I don’t care if I’m the dumbest man here. I just want to hear stories like Joseph’s and ar10308’s bible studies. If my provocation gets that, then good. If it happens because my provocation gets them worked up about what a smug sonuvabitch I am, and then they go out to prove guys like me wrong–that’s good too.
I have few illusions about my place. I simply won’t shut up about what I believe; here, or out there.
asinusspinasmasticans
@AR and anyone else who’s listening
Imagine if Pastor GirlPower got up and started yet another Father’s Day “Man UP!” shaming sermon
Job One should be taking back the pulpits. Female clergy, it goes without saying….
Sorry, must disagree, that likely will be something that happens later on, after men “wearing glasses” take leadership positions. I doubt that some denominations will be willing to give up women preachers – it’s been going on long enough, 3 or more generations in some cases, as to have become a tradition.
Subvert from below. Subvert from the side. The day Pastor GrrlPower looks out at a room full of men “wearing glasses”, some things will change one way or another.
Joseph
I could do a rough outline of what I’m covering, but my powerpoint slides are at home. I started by promising to explain how women operate in the real world and get rid of the mystery surrounding them and how they act. I explained hypergamy and gave a few examples from scripture such as Eve and Ruth. I grounded everything in real world examples of how to display higher SMV through pre-selection. I have also been taking them through several of Rollo’s posts as well as University of Man.
Suggestion for a later point: David and Bathsheba. First review the story in the way it is usually taught – bad man, peeping at woman in her bath! Bad man, lusting for her! Bad man, scheming to get her husband killed! Then put on the glasses….
Ask why Bathsheba was bathing where she could be seen, rather than in a private place. Point out that she wasn’t doing this by accident, and she didn’t let herself be exposed to anyone in the street, but only to the apex of her society, men on the palace walls. Such men are by definition pre-selected, because of where they are walking. She’s not showing her wares off to the common goat herder, she’s advertising to the elite. Discuss hypergamy, and how it does not go away just because a woman is married, she has to work at controlling it. Don’t shirk David’s responsibility, he owns his eyes. But tear away the “poor, li’l Bathsheba” scam.
You also might look through Proverbs. There are examples of bad women in there (don’t tell the Churchians – ssssh!) and at least one example of a good wife in 31. The bad women are short-time-horizon thinking women who don’t look past their next tingle and/or meal. Note the fact that nothing in human nature has changed, although human custom and culture has changed a lot.
Just a suggestion. I’m in no way a scholar of the Bible, but that story stands out for me because once I learned about Game, hypergamy, preselection, etc. it became glaringly obvious what was going on, and that what I’d been taught years ago was bunk. You also might look at Potiphar’s wife, again in terms of hypergamy, alpha chasing and preselection. Not to mention a clear example of female nastiness at work, in a Bible setting.
Screw you Cane those men were and are doing what you churchians should have been doing. You assholes have occupied dalrocks articles for the last couple of weeks doing that vague churchian scripture shit pissing people off in complete denial. Now a man comments he is at his church doing exactly what was needed to help christian men and even hiding it from the churchiaan boss no doubt. Now you want to claim you are here to hear Joseph’s and AR-10 in 308 winchester’s bible studies huh? For the last couple weeks you churchian spoke that waht they were doing is un christian and worshipping the PUA and sluts for man and all other kinds of bullshit.
Thos great men were not training PUA they are helping christian men. Bringing men kept in the dark by churchian lies into the light of the red pill.
As far as shutting up about what you believe, don’t shut up your post are a good training aid for a churchian con artist tell seminar. keep talking that garbage and you too king matt sorry mo fo. As I said before you churchians have showed your asses on this one and it looks like a couple of humble and great men have come forward with something we all can do at any church we attend. I feel like an ass for thinking I needed some professional christian to do something I could be doing. You churchians are no longer needed lurk for a while and learn how to be a christian man.
Oh, and PS to Joseph in the context of Dalrock’s original posting::
who debased Bathsheba’s marriage? Was it her husband? Was it David, all by his lonesome? Or was it Batsheba at first, and then later on some guy who happened to be on the palace wall at the right (or, rather, wrong) time?
60% of divorces in the US are filed by women. Bathsheba didn’t have that option, because if she did have it, it is all but certain she would have used it.
I’ve got to hand it to you, Dalrock. On the one hand you’ve got guys like Joseph showing how an adult Christian can effectively and respectfully spread manosphere ideas to the wider world. And in the same comment threads you’ve got several textbook cases of commenters doing their level best to make Game look like a cultish bunch of nonsense utterly hostile to Christianity.
So what is it, boys? Is Game a genuine and useful social model in the order of Meyers-Briggs or Maslow or whatever; or is it a cult that produces adolescent ragemonkeys incapable of handling disagreement, interested only in shouting “we hate Churchians!” until the men in white coats show up?
zippycatholic
Is Game a genuine and useful social model in the order of Meyers-Briggs or Maslow or whatever; or is it a cult that produces adolescent ragemonkeys incapable of handling disagreement, interested only in shouting “we hate Churchians!” until the men in white coats show up?
You tell us, laughing boy. Right after you explain why the Jonestown mass killing was so doggone amusing. Especially the part about 200 murdered children, that’s a real knee slapper to you, isn’t it?
Time to man up, one way or another, boy.
@AR
I hope someone does analyze that story for you. David sure was in the wrong place–he was supposed to be leading his men in battle against the Amorites, but was being slothful.
One can speculate that Bathsheba knew David was up there, looking down on her. One could also speculate that Bathsheba had a reasonable expectation that David would not be there because he was supposed to be out at war…where her husband was.
The story doesn’t say. What it does say is that God did not question her. It also says David sent servants to get her, slept with her (this is the king, mind you), sent her back, and when she came up pregnant, tried to get her husband Uriah–a soldier with undying faithfulness to the king–to dishonor himself by returning home while everyone else fought. When Uriah “totally-beta’d out” and refused to break tradition, David devised a plan to have him killed–using the enemy he didn’t have the balls to fight–as his unwitting accomplice in the murder of poor Uriah. In the process, all the men in Uriah’s regiment were sacrificed for David’s sloth, lust, and fear of discovery.
When God sends Nathan to rebuke the evildoers, Nathan doesn’t rebuke Bathsheba, or the men who helped accomplish the tactical retreat-cum-murder. Just David is rebuked, and his family cursed; across all wives and their children by him–innocents, by our lights.
Men are more culpable than women; even the really bad ones that Proverbs repeatedly describes as open graves. It doesn’t warn women to not be such, but it warns men to avoid them on pain of death. We rightfully infer that women should not be such.
@greyghost
You are full of it. Here is Keoni Galt on 9/29 in Christian Denial and Institutional Resistance to Change:
Here’s me on 10/2 in that same post, replying to a comment Anon Reader made about the difficulty in turning churches around:
You can go back day after day, here, at my blog, and as Keoni says: elsewhere and I have been repeatedly calling for men to get back in church, and take it back; to not accept the status quo tripe that women are innately good, or mutual submission, or co-headship nonsense. Multiple times I have recommended the preachings and books of Voddie Baucham as a remedy to our ills.
No, you cannot change a Mohler or a Driscoll. Those guys are deeply entrenched; they literally run their denominations, but the under-40 men in the churches, and even many pastors of a typical church are open to hearing these things–even to accepting them.
You get angry at me for being “churchian”, and for saying things against the parts of Game that I think are harmful to men. Then, you get riled up supporting my “crusade”–a term I never used, and would never describe myself as leading, or even being a part of. You can’t wait for me to begin this “crusade”. Now, you’re back to being pissed off at me, accusing me of trying to steal glory of men who are doing what I’ve been encouraging men to do for months. That glory belongs to them. I want no part of it except as a celebrator. But for you to say that I am late to this party is simply stupid.
I don’t think that is a boy Anonymous Reader. I think it is a zippy chick.
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, Anonymous Reader.
Look Cane don’t try to play dumb. What Joseph described in his class was the first lesson of game. had nothing to do with pulling ass. And over and over again Game was described as a psychology of women and what you fellas have done is read a post of a guy using game on a fishing trip and fucking a bunch of christian girls sioling their purity. and then decided that christian men should not know of such things keeping them in the dark
@Anonymous Reader
If the PUA’s are not the primary or main cause of the debasement of marriage, then why bring them up on this thread?
Because they are men, that’s why. There’s something amiss in the mind of the average American and, especially, of the average Churchian. They can’t blame women of anything. When they are close to saying something negative about a woman, it’s like their reasoning abilities turn off and an automatic mechanism to blame men gets activated. We can call this mechanism “the Churchian hamster”.
I don’t want to say that women are worse than men. Women and men are sinners (or human beings if you are a secular) and full of flaws. But when a woman or women in general do something wrong, the Churchian hamster:
a) Shifts the blame to men, a man, society, culture or Satan. Takes any kind of responsibility from the woman as if she were a little child.
b) Runs to forgive and forgets the woman and founds every excuse to do that.
The thing goes to a laughable extremes. Like King A said (talking to Gabrielle)
Not only do they fatally disregard your role in the culture’s redemption, they should go the extra step and reserve the highest place for you!
I beg your pardon? Why should a woman like Gabrielle have the highest place in the culture’s redemption? Because she slutted it up in her youth and now she is sorry about that? Should we have to worship her because of that? Having her as an example to be imitated? So the good girl who never slutted it up has to be below her?
I get that sin has to be forgiven and we all are sinners and we shouldn’t cast the first stone and all that, but the highest place…? Give me a break!
(I suggest King A to convert to Catholicism. In our religion, we have a woman in the second highest place so maybe this quenches his thirst of pedestalization The difference is that woman is worth being in the second place).
In short, I have never understood this idealization of women on behalf of the average American man (and especially, the Churchian man).
Some years ago, I though it was feminism but I realized that other countries have feminism without this worship of women. Then I though it was the outcome of centuries of pedestalization (and the fact that Protestant religion has no female figure so it has to elevate mortal women). But now I think it is deeper than that. Something like mommy issues: something is wrong in the American family, as Jung detected in the early XX century. This worship of females is not natural or normal.
Cane Caldo, Bathsheba was surely not so stupid as to assume that no one from the palace walls would see her. You say that there was no punishment of her – what happened to the child that she birthed? Think that may have bothered her in some way?
Look, do you see any hypergamy at work, or not?
Dalrock wrote:
Oy, I hate to admit this was me. 😦 But the pressure on (and indoctrination of) a young girl is relentless – unless you have someone telling you not to do this, how would you ever know not to? Everyone from the guidance counselor to Barbie is telling you to go to college and get a career. Learn from my mistake on this one, O Young Silent Female Readers!
zippycatholic, perhaps you should read your own link.
At wisegeek it is easy to find this statement:
Because of the association with the terrible events of Jonestown, some people find the term “drink the Kool-Aid” to be in poor taste.
Count me as one of those, I have had nothing but contempt for that term for years, and contempt for those who use it.
Although I should hasten to add that I married before career establishment ensued, and not after, as some girls (attempt to) do.
I think that the King entity is actually a Roman Catholic.
@Brendan
Ok. I stand corrected. Catholic troll.
Here I thought this site was placed at the confluence of Christianity and game. Game is a synonym for manliness. Do you know any men in your lives? When I challenge you to act like one — for this struggle will require men — a substantial number of you (at least the squeaky ones) rather huddle together like a herd of letzte Menschen and yelp at the strange interloper.
You so bitchily condemn the foppishness of “churchianity.” But when I tell you to act like men, you respond like fops. Make up your schizo minds.
Get your war face on. You may not be interested in the war, but the war is interested in you. It will not do for you to gaze at navel lint, sneer at sluts, and compose catty prose about men in the arena.
Half of your equation is right. Quid est veritas? Jesus Christ is truth, and truth is Jesus Christ. But now you require the boldness (manliness) to proclaim that truth to this community of lost and seeking sheep, these beta male chumps, who will otherwise follow their frustrations into the soul-grinding trap of hedonism or despair.
Your fey, NPR-accented locutions about Christian mousiness have emptied the churches of men in their primes. You turn men aside by haughtily refusing to engage them on their level and speak their language. Men want a challenge and they don’t want to be talked to like faggots.
“Churchianity”? Strike that all-purpose, anti-clarifying word from your vocabulary. There is no Christianity without Christ’s church, just as there is no marriage without a bride. “On this rock” he built her, and we constitute the mystical body of Christ-in-this-world, with our Lord the head. Your schismatic yearning is a function of your own scattered souls. That is, the problem is you, not the Bride of Christ.
You want men to be restored to patresfamilias? Look to yourselves, and start acting like one. Stop waiting around to get every feminized preacher to agree with your white papers.
You don’t like blunt criticism? Go back to your huddles for warmth and false comfort, go weep with the women. The rest of us have taken “arms against [this] sea of troubles / And by opposing [will] end them.”
He came to cast fire upon the earth, and would that it were already kindled! Make straight the paths, brothers and fellow burners. You do not know the day or the hour. But most assuredly, he is coming again.
Matt
Count me as one of those, I have had nothing but contempt for that term for years, and contempt for those who use it.
Wow, etymology boy is offended by a common idiom of indeterminate origin. Maybe you can use it as an opportunity to practice Aloof Game and score yourself a combox chick.
@greyghost
Game is more than just the psychology. It is at least the applied psychology–knowledge and practice. I’m of the opinion that it’s more, but maybe it’s just me. Here’s how one fellow named Dalrock described it:
http://canecaldo.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/definition-of-game/#comment-550
I guess you would be one of those people that he says are mis-hearing me. All I can say is that what you accuse me of is simply and demonstrably false. I think you just want to pick a fight because it makes you feel like a you’re a part of some cyberspace gang of really insightful guys who see through the facade of the post-modern American Christianity you were raised in.
The problem with this is you conflate a more solid Christianity with the post-modern one because you’ve never tried to find authentic godliness for yourself. You want it handed to you, pre-packaged. You’re merely a consumer, when you ought to be working it out yourself, through fear and trembling. This is how we got here, because this is what American capitalism has become: it commodifies everything, and the we get poor and sick buying one-stop solutions, pre-packaged foods, and feel-good PC/inclusive Christianity.
The more you work through it, the more you’ll find that good Game is manliness, and then you’ll discover that good manliness is godliness, and Game is but a shadow of a shadow. It’s not that I think there’s a scale and Game is on the left in the Wrong category, and Christianity is on the right in the Right category. The truth is that the scale runs up and down, and at the top is God, and everything below it is evil. Head for the top, and you’ll get good Game thrown in.
@
Here I thought this site was placed at the confluence of Christianity and game.
In fairness to Dalrock, I think it is. He just takes a very hands off approach to his comboxes. For this subject matter and combox volume that is probably the right choice. Anything else would be either discussion stifling or a lot of work.
Do you know any men in your lives? When I challenge you to act like one — for this struggle will require men — a substantial number of you (at least the squeaky ones) rather huddle together like a herd of letzte Menschen and yelp at the strange interloper.
Sorry, but I don’t give a damn if you think I am a man or no and I guess most of people here feel the same. This shaming language is getting old. I don’t know who has given you the authority to decide who is a man but I couldn’t care less about your delusions of grandeur.
You so bitchily condemn the foppishness of “churchianity.”
Yes, Jesus also bitched about Pharisees. He also had to man up. He was such a fop.
You don’t like blunt criticism? Go back to your huddles for warmth and false comfort, go weep with the women. The rest of us have taken “arms against [this] sea of troubles / And by opposing [will] end them.”
I get it. You’re so macho man that the rest of us have to follow you. I am amazed at your awesomely awesomeness. I know your type. They are always bragging about how they are going to go to war. They are talking the others as if they were über-mensch talking to fags or whiny kids. Only words. I live in the Third World. and they are the American guys who came here and shit in their pants when they left their overprotected life.
You want men to be restored to patresfamilias? Look to yourselves, and start acting like one. Stop waiting around to get every feminized preacher to agree with your white papers.
Yes, we only have to man up. We know that.
Everyone from the guidance counselor to Barbie is telling you to go to college and get a career.
Was Barbie that persuasive?
imnobody writes [and right up front I must say that your diminutive and nihilistic screen name is one of the most descriptive monickers I have ever seen]:
You start off well by begging for mercy. Then it is all downhill from there.
As a fellow Catholic, you betray a typically inadequate grasp of scripture, so suffice my response to be largely scriptural. Why should Gabrielle’s redemption be celebrated more highly than the travails of the more naturally obedient? Because Gabrielle’s newfound obedience is a real accomplishment achieved by real sacrifice. Because our primary focus as human beings is to save strays who are born into the death of sin. Because it would have been far easier for her to be damned.
But don’t take it from me. Take it from the Lord your purported God to whom you occasionally listen, when convenient, and when he’s not being all “churchy”:
Excuse me, Jesus? Excuuuuuse me, Jesus? Did I hear you right? I beg your pardon? Say that again?
Can’t be. It must be the dread churchians insisting on such an unfair precept! Like a good American, I will pick and choose which cafeteria items that will compose my faith and reject the ones that cause me consternation. Faith is otherwise too hard.
It’s a package deal, CINO. All of it or none of it.
Matt
@ZC
“So what is it, boys? Is Game a genuine and useful social model in the order of Meyers-Briggs or Maslow or whatever; or is it a cult that produces adolescent ragemonkeys incapable of handling disagreement, interested only in shouting “we hate Churchians!” until the men in white coats show up?”
It’s neither. Game is a set of tools. Nothing more and nothing less. How it is used is as individual as the person who takes it up. I’m working right now trying to distill what I told to the guys in my small group the first night into something that makes sense in a blog format. When I have it ready, I’ll pass it off to you guys so you can see for yourself. Everyone who looks at it will see something different. I don’t condone fornication, but I acknowledge the sexual marketplace. I hate hypergamy, but can recognize it clearly in scripture for what it is. I have trouble maintaining a Biblical frame due to years of indoctrination in the opposite, but can do it well enough now that both my Mom and Sister (who have never shown me an ounce of respect in my life) are very concerned about my opinions on matters. When I get it together in the next day or two you will see it clearly. Some will call it Alpha, some Beta, but no one can deny that it is Christ-like through and through. That’s all I care about.
The internet entity which describes itself as “Matt King” yet again adds nothing to the discussion, other than empty words aimed principally at shoring up his own self-image. Fools, idiots and trolls behave like this, and only the same would listen to a damned word he has to say.
Still sound like churchian bullshit to me. Ok I’ll meet you half way You have a group of fellas and you want to help them out. Get them on the red pill and tell them the worldly nature of women. and leave the churchian shit at church and the christian blogs. What would you say to these men? I know what i would say is basically the same stuff I have commented the last two years refined for the context I was in. I’m not going to go off anymore because basically the issue has been covered.
I wrote, regarding the obnoxious “Kool Aid” meme:
Count me as one of those, I have had nothing but contempt for that term for years, and contempt for those who use it.
zippycatholic:
Wow, etymology boy is offended by a common idiom of indeterminate origin.
I find the idiom to have a rather clear origin – your pet site listed it as one of only two, hardly “indeterminate”, and the “Merry Prankster” origin is limited and rather obscure, frankly – and have contempt for those who use it. Just as I have contempt for those who tell Holocaust jokes, and some other childish things. Clearly that bothers you, apparently because “everyone else is doing it”, and all the “cool guys” in corporate use it. Not my problem. Apparently pointing out the shallowness of your thinking has also rankled you. This is also not my problem. Pointing out that your oh-so-traditional morality now appears to boil down to nothing more than “what everyone else is doing” won’t make you haaaapy, either. This is still not my problem.
You’ve blown your cover. That’s not my problem, either.
Cane take a look at that post up there from Joseph, not to be swinging from the man’s nuts like some fairy but that is how a christian man works with other men in this world for the good of men.
@Anonymous
“who debased Bathsheba’s marriage? Was it her husband? Was it David, all by his lonesome? Or was it Batsheba at first, and then later on some guy who happened to be on the palace wall at the right (or, rather, wrong) time?”
This falls squarely on David’s shoulders. Bathsheba couldn’t be held responsible because she was the property of her husband. David’s sin wasn’t against Bathsheba, but God first and then her husband. David then compounded his sin with lies and then with murder. David stayed at home and temptation found him with his pants down. The Bible doesn’t place any blame for what happened on her at all. I don’t know why she was bathing in the open like that, but I’m fairly certain she didn’t know that David was there, and if she did, David should have walked away. This is why game is important. Hypergamy doesn’t care. A Godly man should.
@Anonymous
“who debased Bathsheba’s marriage? Was it her husband? Was it David, all by his lonesome? Or was it Batsheba at first, and then later on some guy who happened to be on the palace wall at the right (or, rather, wrong) time?”
This falls squarely on David’s shoulders. Bathsheba couldn’t be held responsible because she was the property of her husband. David’s sin wasn’t against Bathsheba, but God first and then her husband. David then compounded his sin with lies and then with murder. David stayed at home and temptation found him with his pants down. The Bible doesn’t place any blame for what happened on her at all. I don’t know why she was bathing in the open like that, but I’m fairly certain she didn’t know that David was there, and if she did, David should have walked away. This is why game is important. Hypergamy doesn’t care. A Godly man should.
Farmboy:
When I was a girl, there were two choices: Barbie or the Sunshine Family dolls. Google image that last one, and then tell me: is it anyone wonder women in my age cohort (early 40s) chose to follow Barbie? 😉
Sorry about that. I’m still trying to get my blog up and stupid Chrome is autofilling forms like an autistic child. that first post was obviously mine as well.
@Brendan
Yes, I guess I was a fool to reply to him. But it is never late to correct one’s mistakes.
Hey Brendan, good to see you again online. I don’t always agree 100% with everything you write, but I respect your perspective and experience (just as I do Dalrock’s).
I leave the room when “Matt King” queefs.
@AR
Probably, but I can’t say for sure from the text. I simply don’t know what the common practice was, or what the circumstances were. It says she was purifying herself from her uncleanness–her period. I don’t know if this was customarily done on roofs in the city. I know that in the wilderness, women had their own tents separated from everyone else. Maybe poorer city-dwelling women had a draped off area of the roof? Maybe customarily David’s entire fortress retinue left with him, so she assumed some privacy?
Or maybe not. It’s entirely possible that with the act of bathing her vagina on the roof she was acting openly and vulgarly hypergamous in the worst sense, and I wouldn’t be surprised. It just can’t be deduced for surefrom the text.
What leads me to think she was being a slut is not so much that she was bathing on the roof, but that she went to the palace. On one hand, he’s the king, and he’s acting evilly. Who knows what he might do if she doesn’t go? Just a few verses later he murders very loyal men. On the other hand: people rebuke and refuse David all the time, and if they are righteous, he begs their forgiveness. She could have cooked up an excuse at least, or sent word to her husband. It’s not the bathing that bothers me, but her mental and emotional separation from her husband. She should have been thinking about him, and not what the king wants.
But that is all speculation, and beside the point.
Yes, her child died, and that is certainly a consequence, but Nathan tells David that the child will die specifically because of David’s sin. This is monstrously unfair if David and Bathsheba are equally culpable; therefore we would have to say God is unfair. We would not be the first.
But, if we believe God is just, and we also know from the story (and the Garden of Eden) that He is more concerned about the sin of men’s submission to women than the sin of women acting like sluts, then we have to face the fact that men are more culpable than women. This means that it doesn’t matter whether Bathsheba walked through the streets naked–don’t bang her unless you want trouble. God will come looking for the man, not the woman. This isn’t because women are better, but worse in this regard.
Iif we assume the worst hypergamy and harlotry of Bathsheba, then the only lesson is: stay away from sluts; and if you have a woman keep her busy at home, and under guard…preferably family. That Christian women often howl at that concept only encourages me that I’m right.
On the flip side: women can be lead easier, and that’s a very good thing when hypergamy and desire are properly directed.
Only “for sure” and “specifically” should be bolded.
Somebody has a mancrush on me! ❤ ❤ ❤
It's okay, Brendan. I return your transparent insecurities and attempt to rally a lynching party … with the Kiss of Peace.
Cheers, brother. And dare I say it? godspeed.
Matty Ice
Joseph
This falls squarely on David’s shoulders. Bathsheba couldn’t be held responsible because she was the property of her husband.
Well, that’s one heck of a pass to give. How do you square the notion of Bathsheba as blameless due to her status as property, with the wife described in Proverbs 31? I don’t see how that woman can do all those things, if she is property.
David’s sin wasn’t against Bathsheba, but God first and then her husband. David then compounded his sin with lies and then with murder. David stayed at home and temptation found him with his pants down. The Bible doesn’t place any blame for what happened on her at all. I don’t know why she was bathing in the open like that, but I’m fairly certain she didn’t know that David was there, and if she did, David should have walked away. This is why game is important. Hypergamy doesn’t care. A Godly man should.
My point in citing this story is the hypergamous nature of women, even when they are married. That’s a key point men need to understand about women, all women, married or not.
David owned his eyes and his actions. Nothing could take that onus off of him. I thought I made that clear before, guess I did not.
Thanks for the response.
King A (Matthew King) says:
When I challenge you to act like one — for this struggle will require men — a substantial number of you (at least the squeaky ones) rather huddle together like a herd of letzte Menschen and yelp at the strange interloper.
You so bitchily condemn the foppishness of “churchianity.” But when I tell you to act like men, you respond like fops. Make up your schizo minds.
————————————–
So do we call you a Keyboard Commando or a Scriptural Commando?
“Churchianity”? Strike that all-purpose, anti-clarifying word from your vocabulary. There is no Christianity without Christ’s church, just as there is no marriage without a bride. “On this rock” he built her, and we constitute the mystical body of Christ-in-this-world, with our Lord the head. Your schismatic yearning is a function of your own scattered souls. That is, the problem is you, not the Bride of Christ.
————————————–
This seems to be the basis for your anger. You don’t like anyone pointing out that the Church isn’t doing it’s job, and has more commonality with feminism than with scripture.
@greyghost
I appreciate your words above. I’m just doing what little I can. It’s not much and it may not last, but it’s definitely making an impression with the guys who hear it so far. At the very least, they can’t go back to the way things were before.
lots of bickering ’round here today.
@Anonymous
“Well, that’s one heck of a pass to give. How do you square the notion of Bathsheba as blameless due to her status as property, with the wife described in Proverbs 31? I don’t see how that woman can do all those things, if she is property.”
The passage wasn’t about Bathsheba, it was about David. I don’t think Bathsheba was blameless, just not copable for David’s sin. Bathsheba clearly never fought back or attempted in any way to resist what was going on and it doesn’t say why she was bathing in public.
So let me state this more clearly. I was talking about David’s sin. She doesn’t share any part of that. Her sin, whatever that might be because scripture doesn’t clearly delineate it, was her own and not the point of the passage. I have no clue if what she did was intentional, but you are right in that she sure did “appear” to be nursing a hamster somewhere in there.
Was Barbie that persuasive?
As much as any doll/role model that has a perfect boyfriend provided for her as an accessory can be.
Cane Caldo
What leads me to think she was being a slut is not so much that she was bathing on the roof, but that she went to the palace. On one hand, he’s the king, and he’s acting evilly. Who knows what he might do if she doesn’t go? Just a few verses later he murders very loyal men. On the other hand: people rebuke and refuse David all the time, and if they are righteous, he begs their forgiveness. She could have cooked up an excuse at least, or sent word to her husband. It’s not the bathing that bothers me, but her mental and emotional separation from her husband. She should have been thinking about him, and not what the king wants.
If she was actual property of her husband, as Joseph states, then all she had to do was tell David’s messengers that she would await her husband’s decision. Hypergamy doesn’t care about propriety, or anything else once the tingle starts, so she went.
Yes, her child died, and that is certainly a consequence, but Nathan tells David that the child will die specifically because of David’s sin. This is monstrously unfair if David and Bathsheba are equally culpable; therefore we would have to say God is unfair. We would not be the first.
i don’t see it that way. He’s the top alpha of the kingdom, “the buck stops here”. But he didn’t rape her. She went willingly, hypergamously. That’s the point. It wasn’t li’l innocent gurl lured by big bad wolf, it was hypergamous female going very willingly. That’s the key issue – women are hypergamous, even when married. This fact explains why so many women cheat, and partly explains why 60% of divorces are filed by them.
Iif we assume the worst hypergamy and harlotry of Bathsheba, then the only lesson is: stay away from sluts;
Agreed. And in the modern world, that becomes more of a challenge every day.
and if you have a woman keep her busy at home, and under guard…preferably family.
That Christian women often howl at that concept only encourages me that I’m right.
I’ve pointed out before here that the female herd instinct could be used like a locomotive to pull other women down the track, if it were correctly channeled. Unfortunately, the senior women in churches now tend to be boomers…
On the flip side: women can be lead easier, and that’s a very good thing when hypergamy and desire are properly directed.
That is what men, especially those such as Joseph is teaching, need to know.
The humorous aspect of this back and forth is that the King Entity seems to think I am impressed with it. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the main issue is that this kind of entity, of which it is only one manifestation, is manifestly harmful to all men, and simply seeks to enslave men under its own watch. Protestations of kisses of peace and so forth from the entity notwithstanding. It’s quite transparent, but to be honest I find the utter obviousness and shamefulness of it all to be humorous — a personal failing in that respect, likely, rather than finding it transparently pathetic and grasping, as it also certainly is.
@Joseph:
It’s neither. Game is a set of tools. Nothing more and nothing less.
That’s basically what Meyers-Briggs, Maslow’s hierarchy, and the like are: sociological tools, useful generalizations. So it isn’t “neither”.
BC wrote:
Oh, they’ve improved upon Ken over the years.
@ZC
I stand corrected. It’s been a while since I’ve looked at Meyers-Briggs. I’m an INTP myself. Rest assured though, give game to a “guru” and he can produce a cult very quickly with it as well with the promise of poon. Most of the guys who fall into the cult like mentality of game are just as hungry as the rest of us for truth. They just use the tools differently.
@sunshinemary:
I laughed. The comments and links under that post are gold, too.
So Joseph’s responses were stuck in spamurgatory?
My lesson is graduate-school seminar level, not Game 101. I absolutely would not recommend “pedestalization” in the sense that PUAs decry. Pedestalization, and the entire calamitous “self-esteem” movement, asks for reward without effort, status without merit, and it prizes person over accomplishment. We do not honor a young woman’s already expansive ego for what she (accidentally) is, but we Christians are enjoined to honor any sinner’s repentance with all the joy of the Father of the prodigal. Our addiction to beautiful things blinds us to a proper assessment of merit, and in our faulty assessment, we give power of the relationship to girls who cannot manage it. That is pedestalization.
Do I strike you as the type of man who suffers hottie snots gladly, who seeks to indulge their crass whims for a few bread-crumbs of attention? Or am I more likely the kind of fellow who delights in knocking them down a few pegs?
The problem is — and this is where the PUA’s authority reaches its limit — that Christians cannot simply tear down sinners without also showing them the way to proper dignity. The obstacle is her unearned, and constantly flattered ego. We crush the princess to build her back up in Christ.
This is the side of the story you don’t hear the players brag about, where a girl’s comeuppance is exceeded to the point of sadism, and damaged souls are left in their wake. Betas with a mind for revenge are attracted to this possibility. But the PUAs themselves will tell you, in their rare moments of non-deception, that depedestalizing a woman and rubbing her pretty face in the dirt is not the most fulfilling of practices after the first time or two you engage in it. Hypergamous girls deserve rebuke and humiliation (literally, a forced humbling), not condemnation and petty hatred. To do otherwise is to harden your heart and risk your soul through the human excesses which constitute sin.
Gabrielle was no part of this equation anymore. She would be the first to disallow the “pedestalization” of her former, destructive ways. But of her improbable salvation? Yes, that goes on display for the greater glory of God: “Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house.”
When I said we should celebrate her return home in the “highest” way, of course I didn’t mean to even hint at supplanting Christ from that position. I thought that went without saying among Christians, but I should have been more precise. Her salvation, God willing, constitutes the highest achievement of any woman, and we should join in the heavenly host who sing as one, “Gloria in excelsis Deo!” each time a soul finds her way back to her Creator.
You are absolutely doing the Lord’s work at your church. I join Dalrock in commending you for the facta non verba approach of your efforts. Please do this entire movement a favor and post the progress of your bible study to a blog. Assemblies like yours comprise the Tocquevillian “little platoons” of civil society wherein all lasting revolutions are fomented. If there is any way for any of us to assist you, directly or indirectly, ask for it. You are a model of a man to your generation. May God bless your enterprise.
Matt
Joseph
The passage wasn’t about Bathsheba, it was about David. I don’t think Bathsheba was blameless, just not copable for David’s sin. Bathsheba clearly never fought back or attempted in any way to resist what was going on and it doesn’t say why she was bathing in public.
I’ll agree with that. Again, David has responsibility for his own actions. I just don’t see any way to assign responsibility for her actions to him as well, but clearly that isn’t what you were saying.
So let me state this more clearly. I was talking about David’s sin. She doesn’t share any part of that. Her sin, whatever that might be because scripture doesn’t clearly delineate it, was her own and not the point of the passage. I have no clue if what she did was intentional, but you are right in that she sure did “appear” to be nursing a hamster somewhere in there.
That’s my point. Women’s hypergamy is a factor to be taken into account, always. It’s like a program in “sleep” mode that wakes up and starts running in the background from time to time. And it’s just as important to recognize it now as in past ages. More so, since a lot of bunk has been pawned off on men about women and their “natural monogamy”.
Let’s say a man is visiting a different city, goes to a church, and finds himself in the lobby of a building with a middle-aged woman of moderate attractiveness dumping a bucked of Indicators Of Interest on him, while her husband lingers in the background talking to someone at the coffee urn. It may not have the drama and majesty of common woman and king, but abstractly it’s the same – man finds another man’s wife displaying for him. And let’s not kid ourselves, women almost always perform their display in a manner that leaves some degree of ambiguity – and thus plausible deniability – in the situation. That’s just another aspect of the female human, it doesn’t matter if we like it or we do not like it, it exists.
She’s standing too close to him, twirling her hair with lots of direct eye contact and bits of physical contact, laughing at his jokes, prompting him for more information about himself, intruding into his personal space to adjust his tie or flick an imaginary piece of lint off of his sleeve with a lingering touch. Clearly, her hypergamy has started something, but he is responsible for his actions, whatever they may be. The prudent man would direct her back to her husband in short order, because nothing good is going to come from any other option. The imprudent man might return the flirting, thinking it harmless, and from his perspective it is. But his attention rewards her hypergamous hamster, and that is likely to encourage her to repeat the performance.
I’ve seen it. It happens. Sometimes, people in churches wind up having adulterous affairs. Men need to know this side of women exists, and it ain’t just the “bad girl harlots” who do it, either.
Hypergamy is a feature, a known issue. Ignorance of it is not bliss. Knowledge of it, like knowledge of fire, enables a man to channel it.
But the modern church leaders are ignorant of hypergamy, and would reject it outright if explained to them in abstract terms, or Roissyite or UMan or Rollo terms. However, they might — might — get part of it if it is explained using quotes from the Bible. Of course, they must be assured that none of their wives are like that (cough), no, it’s other men’s wives in other churches (cough). Explaining it to younger men, who are dealing with the modern women, should be a bit easier…
Joseph, I wish you success. You know many men here will help any way we can.
@Matt
“Why should Gabrielle’s redemption be celebrated more highly than the travails of the more naturally obedient? Because Gabrielle’s newfound obedience is a real accomplishment achieved by real sacrifice. Because our primary focus as human beings is to save strays who are born into the death of sin. Because it would have been far easier for her to be damned.”
What about our repentance and the real accomplishment of it? Most of us have pedestalized and idolized women for our entire lives as a result of how we were raised. Now we are repenting on an epic scale by removing that idol from our lives and putting it where it rightfully belongs.
Brendan writes:
Not really. I do not exist to impress you, and may I gently state that the thought hadn’t crossed my mind.
But I do find adorable your inability to speak to me directly, in a shy-girl kind of way. The third-person and the neutral pronouns and the capital-E “Entity.” If you were a chick, I’d think you were attempting to divinize me. At any rate, you feel as though you must establish prophylaxis against my baleful presence to perhaps the weirdest degree I have ever encountered in a place like this. And — you’ll just have to believe me here — I have been the object of more than a few of such love-hate relationships.
Are you a chick?
I’m afraid we got off on the wrong foot together. What say we shake the Etch A Sketch on this preemptively soured acquaintance? Hello, my name is Matthew. It is nice to meet you.
Matt
“Most of us have pedestalized and idolized women for our entire lives as a result of how we were raised.”
This is what I will never understand.
“Gabrielle was no part of this equation anymore. She would be the first to disallow the “pedestalization” of her former, destructive ways.”
Or she hit the Wall and married a Beta. Hypergamy and the Hamster never die, they only lull themselves to temporary sleep.
And then you get to hold her up above us as an example to us all, which puts you right back into the idol making business. You both get what you want. She gets to be the center of attention again, and you get to try to convince us to pedestalize a woman when we refuse to do so.
How come we never find any of these reformed sluts mentoring to younger women not to follow in their paths?
Even reformed sluts don’t seem to advise other women against their path. I think it is Team Woman. They had their hot sexytime, and don’t see why other girls should miss out.
As Peter Berger, the sociologist, noted; we constantly re-edit and reinterpret our past. But you can be sure some reformed sluts enjoyed their exploits greatly at the time, and maybe sometimes in retrospect.
@DC,
“This is what I will never understand.”
You can’t unless you’ve been there, man. When you have all fronts feeding you a message and none to counter it (not even our fathers spoke against it), it becomes a form of brainwashing. It never feels natural to believe the messages, but they even castrate you from speaking about that feeling.
That is why these former Churchian (like myself) guys actually go through the stages of grief upon taking the Red Pill.
ar10308 says:
Or she hit the Wall and married a Beta. Hypergamy and the Hamster never die, they only lull themselves to temporary sleep.
————————
It’s purely coincidental that the ‘Good Christian Girls’ are redeemed at just about the same time that their feminist sisters enter a ‘New Phase’ in their life and start husband hunting. Purely coincidental I tell you!
ar10308 writes:
http://tinyurl.com/props4ar10308
Yours is an accomplishment, and it is soulcraft, but it is not on par with reconciliation to God. Your pedestalizing and idolizing was not sinful per se, though it may have led to sin, and now you are free to be men in full. Without gainsaying this mighty accomplishment, I aver that it is (unintended) hubris to compare our puny achievements to salvation by the grace of God.
Slaying the Femme-Dragon and her firebreath of hypergamy is legendary, and a tale for the ages. Just don’t make a religion out of it. You already have an object of right worship. Your job is not to achieve the ultimate victory — that has already been done on your behalf. “It is accomplished.” Your job is to proclaim it.
Matt
“Even reformed sluts don’t seem to advise other women against their path. I think it is Team Woman. They had their hot sexytime, and don’t see why other girls should miss out.”
I know. How genuine can their repentance truly be? They take a concerned tone and speak very contritely when required, yet she never warns of the consequences or does anything of consequence to prevent even her own daughters from going down that path.
As always, a woman’s actions tell her story.
@Matt
I appreciate your words of encouragement and indeed I see your point. I also wish to make an observation. We as Christians tend to see the world the way we wish it was. In reality though, I believe that ar10308 is correct in this.
“Hypergamy and the Hamster never die, they only lull themselves to temporary sleep.”
I do not doubt that Gabrielle has genuinely come to Christ. I wish her nothing but the best and hope that she has genuinely turned from the ways of her previous life. I however do not think it is prudent to even make a margin for sin to find root again. If anything, she can be admonished through the women in her church and the men can remain silent on the matter. Women crave attention. To receive it for something like this invites what I have seen in many churches where the same woman returns to the front week after week in a ball of tears to “repent” of her sins and ask forgiveness in yet another public display.
“Yes, that goes on display for the greater glory of God: ‘Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house.'”
I disagree that it is your place to put it on a stand. She alone must carry that light and let the world see what she has become in submission and supplication. It is not our duty as a church to raise her up as a beacon, but to provide an environment for her to grow spiritually so the Spirit may show clearly in her new life to those who live outside the church. To place her in a public setting with us adoring her new position as sister in Christ is setting her up for failure by encouraging her hypergamous desire for more status to grow. I am not saying that we shouldn’t admire that she turned from her sin, but to admonish her publicly for admitting that she is a sinner is inviting the enemy back in disguised as a friend. You may not see it as pedestalizing, but to her hamster, it’s all the same.
Joseph, the greatest punishment for a reformed slut is to be told to shut up and simply serve as a bad example. Another reason why women should remain silent “in the assembly”? That awful woman discussed at SSM’s site who now has a public ministry based on her having cuckolded her husband and reformed, is a perfect example of what not to do. Someone should tell her to shut up.
But they won’t shut up because they want validation at every step.
Or she hit the Wall and married a Beta.
Necessity, meet virtue.
“As always, a woman’s actions tell her story.”
“But they won’t shut up because they want validation at every step.”
It’s the same story everywhere I go. They grow up in church, go off and rebel, come back and repent, and are lauded as hero’s returned home. I’m in agreement. They need to be made to shut up and listen, or walk. This would be a truer test of salvation, to see how committed she is to fighting her base desires.
@Furious Ferret – Look at Singer. He writes G_d instead of simply writing God. That says all you need to know about him.
I am Jewish. There are forbidden times for unspeakable /un-writeable names of G_D. Not that you would know this, despite have a Jewish last name.
@King – G_D commands up to be merciful. It is one of the irrevocable commandments given to man(Micah 6:8 and others) as well as a requirement (Matt 5:7) . And yes mercy does triumph over jugement but it doesnt replace it (read it in the ENTIRE context).
One reaps EXACTLY what they sow. Exactly – not grace, not mercy, nothing. It is a universal spiritual and natural law ( there is no verse that says “grace” trumps, minimizes, detracts from the law of sowing & reaping- none)
G_D doesn’t play favorites and that is a very very good thing.
Shalom.
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2012/10/10 « Free Northerner
ar10308 writes:
If that is true, and she professes her repentance falsely, then she has made a mockery of salvation and deserves rebuke. But since not all of us “have pedestalized and idolized women for our entire lives as a result of how we were raised,” not all of us are as incorrigibly cynical as you about the possibility of redemption. I just do not harbor the kind of resentment you do; and it is not because I am naive about what women are capable of; it is because when presented with the occasion of hypergamous provocation, veni, vidi, vici.
Please. Ease down on the bitterness. That’s an import from your bad old beta days. When I say it’s good to celebrate redemption, you read it as a backdoor justification for sin. “O happy sin, which gained us so great a salvation!” You simply need better Christian tutoring. Scaling the depths of depravity is only good in retrospect: only then do we understand the heights of our wholly undeserved salvation. But part of that salvific understanding includes the knowledge of the true horrors of depravity. If she wants “to be the center of attention again,” that is proof of her ignorance about the true depths from which she was delivered.
SIN IS DEATH. To turn away from God, even venially, is necrosis. To desire a return to her mortal fate means her near-death experience wasn’t instructive enough. And it is evidence that her metanoia is incomplete. We do not celebrate those slothful many who will get around to their salvation after they’ve sinned enough. We celebrate those who have lived to witness sin’s oblivion and report first-hand about its false promise.
Because we are thick in the middle of the shit, brother. We are just cracking the code. It will take generations for our subterranean wisdom to manifest itself fully. For now, be content that there are small signs of a renaissance on the margins, including the very existence of this community, and fight like hell to take the signal mainstream.
But make no mistake — the reformed sluts will have to mentor girls, and their fathers will have to begin protecting their children’s chastity by force again. There is no other way. Until then, our task is to keep the faith.
Matt
@AR
Agreed. Your church visit scenario was right on point. Last week, a lady at a coffee shop register brought me a banana every day for a week from home after I jokingly harassed her about having no bananas the two previous days. She had to be sixty, so it struck me as sweet instead of sick.
Another woman (this one I was working with) brought me homemade snacks every day. When I joked, in an entirely different context, that women should be cooking for men, she turned serious: “That’s not the way it is at my house. My husband cooks for me.”
“Madame,” I said, “You’ve brought me food every day I’ve been here.” Her poor husband. It angered me. She didn’t bring me food the next day, and I was glad.
@ar10308
I think it’s hard for men to know; in the same way that it is hard for us to understand why they don’t think like us about so many things–like why decent women pick fights with their husbands just because they’re bored.
We wouldn’t know what repentance sounds like. That’s why, as you said, it’s important to watch the actions. We don’t have to know the language.
It should be stressed more, that watching the actions of women and men is very important.
Matthew, did you mean what you wrote about blacks at Heartiste? Or were you joking? I am curious.
Did you hear about the new “DIVORCED BARBIE”???
— she comes with Ken’s kids and all his stuff !!
Joseph writes:
What is your offer to the penitent, then? What shall we do? Stone her? Turn our backs?
You have not thought through the four dimensions of this constantly-shifting hypercube of a problem. You are at the first dimension of revelation, and you are stuck there. The terror at the possibility of backsliding into zero-dimension BluePillia keeps you totalitarian and unforgiving about all possible lapses. This is a good thing at your stage! But do not imagine your worm-eye resentments constitute anything close to a comprehensive approach.
You would have the father reject the prodigal son. Meditate on Luke 15 when you’re ready to rise to the next level. Because you do not seem to be aware that rejecting the possibility of sincere repentance creates an active incentive for a girl to chase hypergamy until it destroys her and everything around her. When she thought she wanted to at least try to change, there you were informing her you’re not fooled, and telling her to “walk.” Why then would she bother trying to control these feral drives in the first place? Why not at least have some physical fun before she is reduced to a cat lady?
This is the deal the PUAs are offering, and it is an easy sell to both men and women. We have to be prepared to make the harder case. We have to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. “Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope in you.” When you have played the serpent long enough, it will become easier to act the dove.
We aren’t just selling an alternative way for women because it is the right thing to do. We are selling it because that life is genuinely superior to the hypergamy-indulgent one. Having never been a slut is objectively better than trying out a couple cocks to see “what she’s missing.” It is a more pleasant life in addition to being a more righteous one. And chastity makes her far more attractive to righteous men. Virtue is its own reward. The prize of living a pure life is, first, itself, and then salvation. Whence your resentment for the prodigal daughters, who squandered their prime on false promises?
The hedonist’s answer is the facile, teenage-experimentation rationale: How do you know you won’t like it unless you try it? How can you ever judge what you’ve never experienced? Well, the obverse is also true. How can the slut know what she missed by squandering her virginity? Yes, the virgin will not know what it is like to get 150 cocks up her, but the slut will not know what it is like to only get one. “More is better” is the ethos of the McDonald’s Supersize meal, the aesthetic of the indiscriminate gourmand. The unique and singular and refined is the mark of the gourmet.
In other words, trust that you are selling the superior product. If you understood that the chaste life is better for her in every way, you wouldn’t be so susceptible to perceptions of unfairness. But how could she spend her youth chemically sterilized, disease ridden and childless, the prick-cushion for dozens of unworthy men, and the vaginal-spittoon for innumerable strange sperm … and get away with it! Amends must be made!
They get away with nothing. Accounts begin to get settled long before we die.
Matt
When she thought she wanted to at least try to change, there you were informing her you’re not fooled, and telling her to “walk.” Why then would she bother trying to control these feral drives in the first place?
————————————–
She isn’t controlling anything. She is doing the exact same thing that other women do when they reach the wall. She calls it repentance and her secular friend calls it settling down. Different names for the same BS.
David Collard asked:
Which parts?
My general position against anti-racist hysteria is iconoclasm. The shibboleths have too much power over our expression. And the default SWPL timidity peeves me.
Black culture is abominable and actively deleterious to those trapped in it, and wispy white half-men have lost the nerve to call them out for it. I love black people; they put our spiritually stillborn, mainline protestant traditions to shame with their unabashed witness to Christ — of the ones that do believe. I love black people; that’s why I insist on rescuing them from the bigotry of low expectations and the prison of their self-destructive, anti-family, anti-education culture.
I am white, male, Catholic, and American. Like every other culture on this planet, I am proud of what my forebears achieved and bequeathed me. Unlike every other culture on this planet, I am supposed to act publicly ashamed of my heritage. I have no patience for and no frame of reference to the moralizing, self-hating busybodies who have declared my sentimental bonds to my own people a danger to the republic. Particularly since my forefathers built this republic. We have been so inarguably successful that we have allowed the dweebs among my cohort to speak for us all. It is quite a luxury for a culture to protect and entertain those who want to debase that culture, a luxury we mostly can afford, but nonetheless a luxury that profoundly disrespects the humble sacrifices that made such largess possible.
If you do not have nut enough to speak for your own, to defend them when they are attacked, I simply do not relate to your mentality. Unfortunately, we allowed such shrinking, shrieking eunuchs to seize the commanding heights of our culture. I find their prostration before anti-white pieties repulsive and unbecoming a man. I will have no part of it.
Matt
OK, Matthew. But you seemed to be rather enthusiastic about baiting your black brothers, as I recall. Some of your expressions were very colourful.
A few thoughts:
Matt King is racist? I hope not. Racism of any kind is antithetical to Christ. Full stop.
As for Bathsheba’s bath on the roof. Well it needn’t be anything other than that most people did all kinds of things on their roof, since it would be much cooler than in the house. We cannot even know that she knew the king was there, as he was supposed to be off fighting. David was in fact a bad man, a very naughty one who used his position to steal what was not his and killed one of his best men to cover it up.
There is a careful line to draw between a realistic appraisal of women’s propensity to sin (and man’s need to be aware of it) and loading onto woman all the responsibility. The latter is an echo of Eden where Adam blamed God for the woman and said it was her fault that he sinned.
Not all currency debasement is confined to physical manipulation of coinage.
The more popular variety today is the issue of unbacked [i.e. unsecured by specie; gold and/or silver reserves] money/credit by commercial banks through the fractional reserve lending process.
Though the issue of physical banknotes has largely been supplanted by electronic/digital money & equivalents, this millenniums old mechanism basically remains unchanged. Pyramiding unbacked money/credit on top of your deposit base, dates back very far – goldsmiths did it waaaay back in the day.
This fractional reserve lending mechanism is an essential component of modern monetary systems and combined with central bank operations, ensures the continual and gradual [though sometimes in rapid spurts] expansion of the money supply. Such expansionary ‘inflationism’ is also commonly referred to as ‘debasement’.
It also goes without saying that central banks play a vital role, by virtue of having an absolute monopoly on the supply of money & credit, providing deposit insurance and lending-of-resort and ‘bail-out’ facilities as well as fixing the price of credit [i.e. setting interest rates.]
Can the articles’ analogy be extended to this expanded meaning of ‘debasement’? [It sure does get convoluted describing our monetary system]
P.S. what compels people to use our perpetually devaluing currency, is legal tender laws. Perhaps this aspect may draw a parallel in your expanded analogy?
P.P.S. here’s to you GB4FM.
I think that King A migh be a priest.
– He seems to know latin extensively (Canon Law 249).
– His tone almost always resorts to a person of authority that is dressing down the minions. It’s consisently condensing and expects to be treated as person that is higher than the people he is addressing.
– He seems to know the bible inside and out.
– Very conservative in his political and religious viewpoints.
I think this might explain a lot about where is coming from. This is simply a guess. But besides lawyers who really has that full of a grasp on the dead language of latin?
Various ‘memes’ sometimes filter through the androsphere, and achieve a position of acceptance not entirely dissimilar to Holy Writ, for example we often hear that women hit some sort of Wall at about thirty five. I frankly see no evidence for that at all. That however is not what I wish to discuss, but keeping on topic, I was wondering about the difficulty of women in their thirties or so, bonding with a man. It is often suggested that they will be pining for some earlier lost love. This may be so, but such things are not entirely the province of the thirty-something. As a callow youth I had the misfortune to date and take at face value the protestations of love of a woman who had been discovered ‘delecto infragante’ ie in bed, with a boy when she was thirteen and he twelve! How embarrassing; the parents promptly separated them and she was sent to a school in a different town. She nevertheless ditched me for him (when she was twenty one). It has a happy ending however as she soon thereafter married a man to whom she has remained married ever since. Happy ending for me too, of course, being rid of her.
Also,
King A does make good points.
– He simply believes that men shouldn’t simply bath in hedoism because women have been let loose to behave immorally without direct immediate consequence. That good men should take upon the task of building good families even though it’s quite a difficult task so that society can function at semi-sane level.
– Also for the truly repenant, that mercy and grace should be given. Venegence upon women for behaving in a way that all of the culture is directing her towards is futile and stupid.
I think his views are inherently noble but the medium of his message is elistist and condescending.
I’m glad I didn’t marry a feminist. I married a devout Christian when I lived in Asia. She was a virgin when I married her. (So was I.) We waited out of obedience to Christ. She cooks, cleans, and does housework.
There still are some quality women. If I were single and had never married and knew what I know now, or if I were a widower, I’d probably go to Asia to look for a godly Christian wife, still a virgin. Women are women and Asian woman can easily fill a power vacuum if a man leaves one in the home. Some Asian cultures tend to have females dominating in the home, too, so you have to be careful.
In the US, if I were still single, I might consider a church subculture that emphases male patriarchy. There are girls homeschooled in homes where they watched little TV. Maybe a young woman who grew up wearing a headcovering and churning her own butter would be a good candidate for a young man looking for a traditional woman. You wouldn’t even have to go to that extreme to find a virgin. It might be easier if you marry a young woman, though.
While the percentage of nonfeminist virgin women who understand their role in marriage may be small, such women– or girls– do exist out there. And there are those who repent after they already ‘have a past’ who are serious about being wives, or at least teachable about learning what a wife is really supposed to do.
If I had it all to do over again, I’d emphasize before marriage the wife’s role in being submissive to her husband’s headship, and make sure she agreed to that and realized what it entailed before marriage. I’d also make sure we were on the same page about no divorce. My guess is if a woman is serious enough about it to marry a man with an agreement to submit, she may be serious enough about the divorce issue as well.
Opus, I agree that The Wall is overstated. Of course, most women look their best at about 20, but they are many bedworthy women who are a lot older than that.
May I suggest that Spacetraveller on the 7th October has her Hamster spinning into outer-space on that message of hers. What rationalisation! Where’s Deti!
“Racism of any kind is antithetical to Christ.”
Except when ‘racism’ is understood in its correct meaning ‘white people have the right to exist.’
@ Sunshine Mary,
Most modern women are guilty of this ‘playing career woman’ game. If ‘guilty’ is the right word.
But thinking about it, is staying at home doing needlework until you are 20 workable in this day and age of economic crises?
And even if there were no economic crises, are 20 year old men ready to marry? Even 30 year old men?
Whilst I am also dead against the career queens who think marriage is somehow beneath them, I do have sympathy for modern women who must juggle working life against the right timing for marriage, all in the knowledge that the timing may not in fact be of their own choosing.
Whilst I agree with Dalrock that a woman saying ‘but if I had got a proposal at age 20, I would have married!’ is not being totally honest, I also know that there are many many people who regret marrying that young, men AND women.
I don’t think it is a bad idea to ‘play career woman’ until it is time to marry.
What’s unforgiveable is to think that the career or education makes you somehow special, or exempt from normal womanhood requirements (because men don’t care how educated you are…if you don’t pass their ‘boner test’ or cook, they probably won’t marry you – which is fair enough).
But throughout the ages, not many people got to marry at exactly the time they wanted. It takes two people to come to that decision.
So prescribing for all that they get married at 20 is not even feasible for most.
Whenever you are mature enough to marry, is the right time for you.
In the meantime, do whatever you need to do to maximise your attractiveness/self-sufficiency/prospects. This means differrent things depending on your gender. For men, it probably means having a stable job, being self-assured and confident. For women, it probably means being as attractive as possible, being still fertile and as close to virginity as possible. If in addition, say a man is a virgin at age 35 or so, or say a woman is unusually confident, these can be pluses as long as they maintain the gender ‘norms’ described above as well.
‘But throughout the ages, not many people got to marry at exactly the time they wanted. It takes two people to come to that decision.’
But throughout the ages, not many people got to marry at exactly the time they wanted. It took negotiating with the woman’s father in order for that transaction of marriage to happen. So I guess it did take two people to come to that decision. The bride’s father and the groom.
@Joseph:
This falls squarely on David’s shoulders. Bathsheba couldn’t be held responsible because she was the property of her husband.
“She was property, so it was his sin/crime.” So? Since she was created she had moral agency. Slaves can sin.
She bathed on the roof for others to see. The idea that she did it just to be cool? Ok, so hang some drapes and no one can see you. Nah, she wanted to be seen and she knew who could see her and who would approach the wife of the King’s general. Equal or greater stature only, no others need apply.
They both are responsible for the sin.
People often ask me, “Is it true, Opus, that you are a pick up artist?”
“You mean like yesterday, don’t you?” I reply.
“Yes that is it” they say. So I tell them what happened in the Bank.
I was trying to pay my water bill in cash – why by the way is it that your average bank-teller seems entirely unfamiliar with the concept of mental arithmetic? – anyway I grasped the coins given by way of change and promptly managed to drop a few on the floor. A female employee – a middle aged woman with blond hair – was standing nearby and made as if to get on her kness to recover my coins, but I beat her too it. I instantly recognised that, so going beyond the call of her employment duties, that this woman was fairly submissive and therefore maleable – whether I fancied her was entirely irrelevant indeed I had yet to even look at her. I thus decided to play on her willingness and up the anti. I told her I had a bad back. She agreed that that was what she thought was the case – I thus realised she was infinitely suggestible. I said I needed a massage, and wondered whether her duties at the bank extended that far. She said it didn’t. I explained I suffered from sclerosis of the back, and this brought out the sympathy in her. She volunteered that she had recently had a massage herself, and how good they were. This was thus all going to plan as I had already manouevered the conversation around to discussion of physical pleasures of a hands-on sort. By this time we had crossed the large banking-hall (Grade 1 listed building – you see) and she enquired whether there was anything else she could do for me today – that must be what she is supposed to say. I replied that as she had failed to provide a massage [I acted so faux hurt] that there was nothing she could offer me, thus implying that I saw her entirely as a sex object. Of course some may say this is not so much game as sexual harrassement and others may see this as not consistent with anything in the New Testament.
How genuine can their repentance truly be? They take a concerned tone and speak very contritely when required, yet she never warns of the consequences or does anything of consequence to prevent even her own daughters from going down that path.
How can they let the evil be perpetuated? How can they let their sisters suffer? Dunno.
But at least on our side, we can do something. Joseph is a good example. Spread the red pill one guy at a time. A fella did this for me, and now I pass it on at every opportunity. This is the moral thing to do.
@RTP
I explained further a little later. I don’t think she is copable for David’s crime. The question as I understood it was, was Bathsheba responsible for making David sin. In that regard, she is not responsible. She had no position of authority over him and could not force him to do anything. David’s sin is his to bear alone. Bathsheba committed her own sin, but the Bible isn’t concerned about her and doesn’t elaborate on her side of the story. So no, I do not think she shares responsibility for David’s sin, only her own.
@ Joseph
They need to be made to shut up and listen, or walk. This would be a truer test of salvation, to see how committed she is to fighting her base desires.
Then you will lose nearly every single one. Yes, we want validation. I daresay we need it. Does that mean that you should pedestalize those women who return (in the sense of game)? No. Of course not. But I am here to tell you, without the strong men of the church welcoming us back, the pull of degradation is too much. The herd of the feminized community to too strong. There are women out there trying to teach the younger from their own mistakes, but without you men, without your strength, those women will ultimately fail. Those women are not strong enough and do not have enough validation to sell to pull these young women in alone. The strong men do have the strength, the power and the means to walk that fine line of holding women accountable for their sins while at the same time forgiving and accepting women enough to keep us where we belong in the church, society and our marriages.
Mormons are great until one of them explains all the stuff they believe. Or at least the stuff they openly tell people they believe, which is quite bad enough.
I’m not going to get started, I’m sure even a casual google will produce pages and pages and pages of bad stuff.
Opus:
I’m not one to hamsterlate SpaceTraveller. I like her and she has had some interesting things to say over at dannyfrom504’s.
My comment on women working is simply this. All women have choices to make, and those choices have expanded greatly in the past 100 years. A woman can have a career, or be a SAHM, or marry and remain childless, or hold a “job” (not a career) after the kids are in school. If she’s unfortunate she might have to work out of necessity to support the family.
It’s important to remember all these are functions of her choices. HER choices. Her choices in when to marry, whom to marry, whether to marry, and when and whether to have children, and her job/career choice.
What often gets lost in these discussions is that the expansion of women’s choices has affected how men make their choices. Women are not the only ones who have choices and decisions to make, and women’s decisions do not affect only the women making them. Men also have choices to make in their lives. Men also have to decide life-altering things such as whether marriage as a lifestyle choice makes sense; whether marriage is worth the enormous risks; when to marry; how to select a wife; and how it will all work out. Men are also expected to shoulder the burdens of supporting not only themselves, but also their families. Despite women working in droves, they still have greater leeway on leaving the workforce to have children. Many do, and those who can’t wish they could. Men’s options remain more constricted – society expects a married man with children to be busting his ass to support them.
It is as if feminism and women believed the expansion of their options would have no effect on men, or children, or families. It is as if women and the feminist mindset/attitude believed that things would simply carry on as before under Marriage 1.0. Women simply expected men to absorb all the impacts and effects of the new paradigm. And in fact, this is exactly how it has worked out. We see this in men being expected to wait until women are darn good and ready to get married, whether that means waiting for her to get done with medical school then residency then board certification; or “traveling”; or carouseling. We see this in the top men getting most of the sex while most men get nothing. We see this in men marrying former carouselers and then being forced to endure the “I’m not haaaaappy” divorce and consigned to alimony/child support wage slavery.
The other problem I see with “playing career woman” is, as Dalrock has suggested, the point is not really to find fulfillment in or enjoy a worthwhile vocation; but rather to mark time until something else happens or to cross something off a checklist. Too many women view working as such.
“I’m waiting for Mr. Right and he hasn’t come yet.” Honey, don’t wait. Get off your tookus and go look for him. Stop looking for reasons to reject men, and instead find reasons why he might make a good partner. Get off the carousel and stop going home with alpha asshats.
“I don’t really know what I want to do with my life.” Then do some soul-searching and find out.
“I really wanna be a doctor/dentist/lawyer/MBA, and get married, and have kids.” Really? You can’t do them all at the same time. Do you know what’s involved in working in law or medicine or business, how much education it takes, and the level of dedication it takes? Are you? Make sure you find out. Make your decisions early, and live with them. You cannot have it all, not at the same time. Get realistic.
@Stingray
They need to be made to shut up and listen, or walk. This would be a truer test of salvation, to see how committed she is to fighting her base desires.
Then you will lose nearly every single one. Yes, we want validation. I daresay we need it.
Then, they can walk and the Church will be better without them. They wanted validation by Alphas when they were young and, now, that the Alpha validation has dried up, they want validation by the Church betas. So they have come to the Church not to be Christian but to get their validation fix.
Church is for repenting, for being submissive to the will of the Lord, to be humble, not to be an attention whore. So now they can be “the redeemed daughter of God” as Gabrielle put it and be in the spotlight again and even preach from the supposed superiority of being a redeemed one.
If you see the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+18%3A9-14&version=NIV
The Tax Collector got no attention at all and he didn’t want it. He wanted to be forgiven of their sins by the Lord and he got this.
The Tax Collector got no validation either from the people in the Temple. He was justified. Justification is the aim of the Christian religion and the Church is not a social club.
imnobody,
Yes, and the tax collector was a man. Women are not men and most of us do not have the same strength as men in our ability to stand alone and “beat [our] breast” to be humbled and therefore exalted before God. The validation does not necessarily mean we need to be the center of attention. It means we are more dependent on men to show us the way. If you only berate and throw our sins in our faces without giving us something to hold onto to show us the way we will fall back to the herd. And these days the herd is the peak of debasement.
@Stingray
“Then you will lose nearly every single one. Yes, we want validation. I daresay we need it. Does that mean that you should pedestalize those women who return (in the sense of game)? No. Of course not. But I am here to tell you, without the strong men of the church welcoming us back, the pull of degradation is too much. The herd of the feminized community to too strong. There are women out there trying to teach the younger from their own mistakes, but without you men, without your strength, those women will ultimately fail. Those women are not strong enough and do not have enough validation to sell to pull these young women in alone. The strong men do have the strength, the power and the means to walk that fine line of holding women accountable for their sins while at the same time forgiving and accepting women enough to keep us where we belong in the church, society and our marriages.”
And you prove my point. If they are truly repentant, then validation is not a requirement. The men of the church will indeed welcome back anyone what has strayed, but our current paradigm of treating them as returning heroes is ridiculous. They do not “need” validation. They need salvation. If we loose them because we didn’t validate them enough, then the transformation wasn’t real. We are dealing with a prize that is greater than anything you can possess through any other means. It is worth the price you have to pay for it (giving up sin). Validation is not a requirement for salvation, but you think it is a necessity for women to stay. If that is the case, then their commitment to Christ is shallow and they need to be sent away. It’s not nice, but we are talking about a fundamental change in how we operate in church today. If we solidify the men to the point where they are immovable in their faith, the women will follow without the validation that they would “need” otherwise. Women have always been followers, we have to focus on giving them something real to follow.
@imnobody
Stingray is right. You cannot say that women are “herd animals” by nature, and then exclude them from the joyful regions of the flock. I’m not talking about sex or marriage, but the celebrations. They will join the goats if we do this, and we will bear some responsibility because we knew their nature, and yet treated them badly. There is a way to celebrate with them, and not pedestalize them.
Church is not a social club, but we are social creatures.
Sting:
Welcoming back the prodigal daughters is indeed a delicate matter. I hear your need for validation. That “validation” must come from women, I’m afraid. The judgment and “facts” will have to come from the men. She must be loved, but also held accountable. If done properly, the church can do both.
I think, Sting, you’d agree that the modern Church in North America has been far too heavy on love and validation; and not nearly heavy enough on judgment and instruction, rebuke and reproof.
The slut must return to church with a broken and contrite heart, humble herself before God and her elders, and candidly admit her sins. She’s got to get them all out on the table, every one of them, out loud, own them, and take responsibility for them. She has to receive judgment. That judgment will take many forms – making amends, accepting that she is no longer marriage material, accepting her marriage prospects are severely diminished, accepting she cannot have children.
The women can say “there, there, dear”. The men will have to pass judgment, and sometimes she will have to shut up, listen, and take her lumps. The slut will have to receive both with humility and grace.
@Stingray and @Cane
I was going to reply but Joseph expressed my thoughts better than I can. I subscribe every word of his post.
@ Deti,
Thank you.
But I am not sure what ‘hamsterlate’ means – couldn’t find it in any dictionary. I guess it’s a matter of time before Manosphere slang makes it into the Oxford Dictionary 🙂
Yes I do admit I have one heck of a hamster. And as Danny always says, it will never die.
True.
But I hope I do make at least SOME sense when I comment.
This topic of women and work really confuses me.
“Despite women working in droves, they still have greater leeway on leaving the workforce to have children. Many do, and those who can’t wish they could. Men’s options remain more constricted – society expects a married man with children to be busting his ass to support them.”
Well, of course you are right here! Women who opt out of the full-time working life are ‘getting out’ of working, yes. But that’s only because they have another job, and I daresay, a more important job to do than the one they are leaving. At least those who take it seriously know that they are doing a far more important job being at home (or nearby at least) with the kids while they are still young enough to need their mother at home.
I agree that those who stay at home and are not really doing anything are a bit questionable, yes. But I am sure the vast majority are doing something worthwhile when they are at home – and not just watching TV. At least I hope so. (But OK, I could be very wrong here…if anyone has evidence to show that I am wrong, fair enough, I shall eat my words).
I am in general agreement with you that women’s choices do affect men, and of course men are free to make their own choices. This is why it is good for women to have an agenda which is in line with what men need, career or not. It simplifies things. If her career is for the good of the family (eg. when husband is ill she can chip in with earning some money for the family, then the career is a positive thing. If the caereer is for her to use to bash her husband mentally, then it would have been better for her not to have had a career at all…
Stingray,
Yes, +1.
Women cannot evangelise other women on their own. Men really need to chip in and help. I think you are onto something. One argument for ‘mainstreaming’ The Manosphere perhaps? 🙂
I’m not even sure what this means, but yeah, sure white people a right to exist, to celebrate their cultural inheritance, to glorify God through the gifts he has given white people. I wonder why a statement that racism is antithetical to Christ would generate such a response though, The response implies a pre-suppositional stance on the meaning of the statement or on the intentions of the person making the statement.
But yes, racism (or ethnocentrism if you prefer) is antithetical to Christ, whether it is Kikuyu looking down on Luo, or Germans looking down on Slavs, or Japanese looking down on Koreans, or American Whites looking down on American Blacks or any of the other thousands of permutations of human depravity that have infected mankind throughout time. They are all sin as they are all rooted in prideful arrogance that seeks to re-make God in our own image and to (subtly or obviously) cast others as somehow less than ourselves, and, when we have the means to erecting structures of oppression that reinforce that prideful arrogance.
Joseph,
Validation does not necessarily mean that we need praise or a setting above others. It is as simple as saying, “You are doing right.”
If we solidify the men to the point where they are immovable in their faith, the women will follow without the validation that they would “need” otherwise. Women have always been followers, we have to focus on giving them something real to follow.
I agree that solidifying men is necessary, but we are not going to follow simply because you are an immovable force. We don’t submit out of fear, we submit out of respect. We respect those more who offer a crumb of hope rather than those who offer pain. Giving us something real to follow means giving us teachers whom will chastise us as needed as well as offer us knowledge of doing right. The validation that is needed is simply “Sister, you did right in coming here and trying to find the right path. Welcome.”, not sickening praise.
The women can say “there, there, dear”. The men will have to pass judgment, and sometimes she will have to shut up, listen, and take her lumps. The slut will have to receive both with humility and grace.
Yes, absolutely. I agree with your entire comment. All I’m saying is that if the men don’t show some kind of acceptance for her repentance after she has done ALL of what you say, some kind of welcome home from more than just the women, she will not stay. Getting it from the women is not enough. She needs it from the men as well. You are the basis of our strength against the herd.
Whether a wife stays home or goes out to work is between her lord (husband) and her LORD (Christ) but the consequences are much broader than herself alone. Any woman who opts to stay home is being subsidized by someone — either her husband, or the state — and much of what it takes to complete modern day housekeeping is minimal, especially if the kids are enrolled in school outside the home. She may be providing a very valuable service in childrearing, but it is not easily quantifiable (as in monetarily). The costs of her education, and sometimes higher higher education are quantifiable however. From a strictly economic point of view it is very wasteful to spend so many thousands on education for someone who will work full-time for a couple of years, get married, have babies, and drop out of the workforce altogether or substantially. The entire “career” path is underwritten by someone else (a man) and in no case is the woman expected to assume adult responsibility for the choices she’s made.
Sting:
I as a man would say something like this to a slut seeking to come out of the lifestyle:
“Daughter, I love you and I am glad you are home. That having been said, you must face up to your past. You will have to accept that past, get it all out on the table, and take responsibility for it. You must understand that your life now is a direct result of YOUR choices, and no one else’s.
“If you want something better, you will have to learn to live your life a different way now. That different way has different rules and principles. You will have to learn them and live them. You will make mistakes. You will have to own up to them. We expect you to be accountable for yourself, your past conduct, and all your conduct from here on out. Excuses, blaming others, and rationalizations will not be accepted.
“You are part of our family now, and our family has rules. You will be expected to follow them
“I don’t know what the consequences of your past will be. But there will be consequences, and you will have to walk them all the way out. They are yours, you own them, and you will have to live with them, whatever they are. We will help you understand them and live with them.”
Deti,
In my humble opinion, I think that’s perfect. You offer her some validation (though maybe it’s not in the game sense and that’s where the confusion is):
~ Daughter, I love you and I am glad you are home.
~ You are part of our family now, and our family has rules.
~ We will help you understand them and live with them.
Without these, I don’t think women will have the strength on their own even when support is given by other women. I agree that other women must be there to help. But I don’t think it’s enough.
Ming A, Mark Singer, et al. tip their hand by never passing judgment on the churches, professors, editors, and fiat buttcockerz.
Instead they spend all their time thumping their chests and blowing and bloviating, trolling, fighting, arguing, and raging against Dalrock and Heartiste.
Never in a million years will they share as story of how they tried to get a major publishing house to stop publishing and profiting off of stories of secretive tapings of butthext. Never will they fight the immoral divorce regime nor the immoral banking system and fiat butthexting cartel.
Instead, they spend their days running their insipid, floundering, diarretic, soulless prose through spellcheck, and raging against moral spirits and exalted souls such as those of Heartiste and Dalrock.
Instead of fighting for their brother, the attention whores fight their brother. Instead of building people up with biblical verses properly used, they tear them down with randomly-thrown, decontexualized, and bastardized biblical passages, which they wield like a baseball bat in the hands of a five year old who poops is pants, smiles,tries to swing the bat to distract us from the smell of the poop, and says, “look at me! Weee weee weee!”
zlozozlzlz
Spacetraveller, you may find this information on daytime TV ratings to be of interest.
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/09/27/abc-ranks-as-daytimes-1-network-across-target-women-18-34-women-18-49-and-women-25-54/150504/
Men tend to seek justice (cause and effect, just rewards, truth)
Women tend to seek fairness (social fairness, equality of results, feelings)
Accept completely or reject completely is a false dichotomy.
Yes, the prodigal son should be welcomed back into the household (forgiven), but not with the same station and rights as other sons who stayed and performed their duties faithfully and honorably. Not only would that be unjust, it sets a bad example.
Yes, the prodigal daughter (reformed slut) should be welcomed back into the fold, but her “N” still exists. She is damaged goods, and should understand and accept that while she can humble and work to better herself, she cannot reasonably expect to gain a mate on the same level as an equivalent age/beauty women without the “N”. Again, not only would that be unjust, it sets a bad example.
The same goes for other sins and repentant sinners regardless of gender: Forgive does not mean “pretend it never happened.” And it especially does not mean fete the reformed sinner.
And as others have already pointed out, a person that will not repent because understanding and accepting the consequences of their actions would hurt their feelings, is not truly repentant.
@Stingray
Most men, I would say even in the manosphere, have no idea how much their view of a woman impacts the woman. This is one of feminism’s great successes, to convince men that women don’t care what men think, or that they only care what the apex men think. Average men have the respect of other men. They have to, or they wouldn’t even be average, they would be omega. This is one of the things that drives feminists crazy. It is separate from the apex fallacy but reinforces the same result of envy of men. Having the respect of other men, being “one of the guys”, has status to women which they can’t ever achieve themselves. This is the reason feminists have been so shrill in denouncing even the slightest judgment of women by men; men’s opinions matter (both ways) to women in a way that men simply don’t understand. We can easily* reclaim this power whenever we choose. All we need to do is acknowledge it.
*In some cases the risks may not be worth the benefit, such as in the workplace where HR can be invoked. However, in many cases there is no actual risk to a man in utilizing this power aside from suffering some short term clucking to test his strength.
@Joseph
I think we mostly agree, but you set up a false dichotomy. That is a problem for you, Deti, and imnobody.
You are right that they are often celebrated as heroes, and you are right this is wrong. Nevertheless, when the prodigal son returned home he was given a ring, and clothes, and a feast welcomed back as a son who was kidnapped; not as an untrustworthy rebel. The prodigal son didn’t even get to tell his father that he just wanted to be a servant. He was restored as a full son no matter what he or his brother thought he deserved.
My guess is that the root of your problem is that you believe you are the son who stayed home, but is that really the case? Is that the case in your hearts? If it is, then you have your reward ahead of you: your portion of the inheritance has not been squandered, and bemoaning that you were not even allowed a goat for a party with your friends reveals pettiness in the heart.
When Matt King wrote his comment about the adolescent desire to try all things, he conjured the image of a woman who hosted 150 cocks. I thought: Those women are, in a way, easier to forgive. Their self-abuse and debasement is easy to see. What is more difficult to accept is the woman who handled a handful of cocks, and now that it’s “not working out for them”, they chalk it up to “bad experiences”, as if they were merely victims. I have a very hard time accepting that. I can more easily accept a woman who has destroyed herself, than one who played around a bit.
The bottom line is–as has been rightly said–that we have to judge the fruits, i.e., watch their actions. Truly repentant women will still stay things that seem stupid and even rebellious to us, because they don’t speak like we do, and, frankly, they don’t truly understand what they have done. We don’t fully know either (in the way God knows), but we know much more than women. I don’t even think it’s necessary to have a talk with them, except to say: “If you love me, obey my commandments.” Trying to talk them into submission is useless. So is trying to extract the proper words of expressing submission.
Fundamentally this is all white knighting by another name. Man up and marry the sluts, by another name. If you don’t accept the sluts, they’ll keep on being sluts, and it will be your fault, so man up, be strong, accept them back, marry them and so on. This is White Knighting 101.
How the fuck did the combox section of this blog in particular become so utterly dominated by White Knights?
“ @ Deti,
Thank you.
But I am not sure what ‘hamsterlate’ means – couldn’t find it in any dictionary”
ST:
“Hamsterlate” and “Hamsterlation” are portmanteaus of “hamster” and “translate”. It is the art of reading the words a woman’s rationalization hamster says or writes, then translating it into the true thought processes, words, or events the hamster is relating or describing.
I designed and built the world’s first Q36B Space Hamsterlator (patent pending, all rights reserved). It has been refined and tested over on the “Are women done with men after age 55?” proving ground thread. Opus also has one. The Hamsterlator is a boon to men everywhere, as it makes sense of what hamsters really say. Only those people who richly deserve hamsterlation treatment are subjected to it, however, as it can be quite blunt and direct, and admits of no censorship.
“Feminists and their enablers have slowly shaved off the value of marriage for men.”
You say this like it’s a bad thing. It’s a wonderful thing. Misogynistic men are losing control over women who are making their own decisions. Good men like the men in my life (I guess you would refer to them as enablers) support my decisions. Happy to live in a world where I actually have a voice, choices, and a chance for equality.
The prodigal son … was restored as a full son no matter what he or his brother thought he deserved.
Yes, and biblical or not, that is a fundamental problem for most men, because as I wrote above, men tend to seek justice (cause and effect, just rewards, truth), and women tend to seek fairness (social fairness, equality of results, feelings).
I think this all-or-nothing accept-or-reject is the true false dichotomy. Treating a slut, even a reformed slut, exactly the same as a chaste woman, is anathema to most men.
Deti is right on spot, here. In my experience, many former sluts who return to the Church don’t want that. They want to start fresh. Everything is forgotten and forgiven, there are no consequences, Jesus love me so you don’t dare to judge me, I’m entitled to the best man because I’m the daughter of God. When you start noticing, they are judging the other people from a superiority attitude. Jesus is the ultimate “you can do what you want and do no reap the consequences” card.
In other words, all rights, no responsibility. In other words, Christianity as an alibi not to mature beyond the age of ten. A fluffy Jesus, like a giant Teddy Bear, like your loving boyfriend, who never demands anything from you. In other words,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_therapeutic_deism
Nothing of the man who railed against Pharisees and entered the Temple with a whip.
@Brendan
Who said anything about marrying them? Why does accepting demonstrably repentant men or women as brothers and sisters offend you? No one has said to accept those who are not being obedient.
Why are you so defeated?
The prodigal son … was restored as a full son no matter what he or his brother thought he deserved.
But he was not given back the half of the inheritance he has squandered.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2015:11-32;&version=NIV
“‘My son,’ the father said [to the other son], ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours
The love of his Father was still there but his actions had consequences. This is what many people have said here: God forgives us but the earthly consequences of our actions are still there.
He was not praised as an example of moral behavior either. He was loved but he was not received as a hero for having wasted his fortune.
Having said that, I think one of the problems of American Churchianity is to misinterpret Scripture. They only pick and choose the texts that reinforce their preconceptions and interpret them in a way that reinforces their preconceptions. So you have a Churchianity compatible with feminism, pedestalization and so on and so forth. Not the real Christianity
@imnobody
The responsibility is to follow the commandments of fathers, husbands, elder women, and church leaders. This is the actions that we brothers should be watching for.
Cane —
It’s one thing to accept that the church is a gathering of sinners. It’s another to suggest that the sin (of either the men or the women) should be accepted as if it didn’t happen, and, yes, if you read above that acceptance would naturally and inexorably flow to “marry the sluts” because after all they are under grace now, and so it shouldn’t matter — and if it does matter to you, you are not living under grace yourself, and recognizing the grace of her forgiveness in Christ. It all flows together.
Note that I am not saying that these people should be shunned from churches. However, their sins, and the nature of them, should be taken into consideration, and in a very critical way, when assessing them as relationship partners. That’s where the rubber hits the road, and where the “man up and accept the sluts” inexorably and inevitably leads. It’s WK full-stop.
Brendan:
I don’t think accepting a truly repentant slut back into the fold is white knighting. Women offer comfort, men impose judgment. “Dear, you’ve really ruined your marriage chances. You’ll have to take whatever you can get. That might be nobody. It might be the case that nobody will want to marry you. You’ve got sexual hang-ups and baggage. You’re gonna have a hell of a time bonding to any man who will want to marry you, if one does. You’re really going to have to work at it. You might be infertile or too old to have children. You need to accept all this.”
I don’t advocate “man up and marry the slut”. More like “pray up and help the sluts who want help.”
@Brendan
I wonder the same. I think there are several white knights that are jobless or have an easy job so they can write frequent and lenghty comments. They dominate the discussion by suffocating other opinions in a sea of words.
I have to go. I have work to do. The Java programming language is waiting for me.
@deti
How are the Android and iOS versions of the hamsterlator coming?
Dalrock,
Exactly. Thank you for explaining it better than I was. Female sinners may need the older women to learn from, but they need the men of the church to lean on and be the Rock. We simply cannot lean on older, wiser women in the same fashion that we can the men. When we do, the result is what we have today.
Actually, the most profound example of repentance I can think of among the Saints is the story of St Mary of Egypt, ‘as wild and friendless as a hawk’. She lived in the fourth century, in Alexandria, and despite her pious upbringing fell into sex-positive sluttery evidently for the pure pleasure of it. She fell in with several monks on pilgrimage to Jerusalem and traded her sexual favors for the cost of passage.
In Jerusalem for the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, she found ample opportunity for the exercise of her lusts among the pilgrims gathered there. In her own words, “I frequently forced those miserable youths even against their own will. There is no depravity of which I was not their teacher.” At the height of the feast, she attempted to enter into the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, but was prevented as if by a physical force. She tried again and again, presuming that her status as a baptized Christian could secure her entry.
Turning from the doorway, her eyes fell upon an icon of the Holy Mother of God, and she was overwhelmed with compunction. Weeping bitterly, she begged to be allowed to enter the church to venerate the Cross, which was granted her. After the service, she departed to the desert of Judea where she spent the next forty-seven years of her life in abject prayer, fasting, and repentance, eating whatever the desert offered her and clothed in the remnants of her garments. In this state, she was discovered by the priest Zosima, who blessed her and to whom she told her story.
I have always maintained that a man incapable of murdering another man and stealing his wife would never have had enough passion to write the Psalms. In the same way, St. Mary of Egypt transformed her corrupted eros through an almost absolute ascesis into something so pure and radiant that my church dedicates one out the six Lenten Sundays to her memory. By contrast, I am a man of such tepid desires that I sometimes wonder if I am worth saving or damning.
“Kerrie says:
October 10, 2012 at 10:09 am
“Feminists and their enablers have slowly shaved off the value of marriage for men.”
You say this like it’s a bad thing. It’s a wonderful thing. Misogynistic men are losing control over women who are making their own decisions. Good men like the men in my life (I guess you would refer to them as enablers) support my decisions. Happy to live in a world where I actually have a voice, choices, and a chance for equality.”
Dear Kerrie,
What would Jesus think of the independent women’s choices to 1) spread their legs outside of marriage and 2) then abort over 50,000,000 unborn babies?
Do you think Jesus would smile upon both the premarital fornication and the murder of babies?
Did Jesus support the bullying of the week, meek, and innocent by the powerful sinners?
Right, but St. Mary of Egypt wasn’t looking for validation from the congregations of the churches as a condition for maintaining her own repentance. In many ways St. Mary is a great example of the difference of opinion being expressed on this topic here I think.
“If the caereer is for her to use to bash her husband mentally, then it would have been better for her not to have had a career at all…”
ST: Sadly, at least in the part of the world where I live, this is the case. It is as though the career entitles the wife to browbeat her husband on every front. It is power. Often, she earns more than him if she has chosen a career – often she is considered the “primary breadwinner”. You can imagine the dynamic that this brings to the marriage relationship.
These women typically have “lists” ready-made for their “hubbys” on their husband’s days off, but the women spend their days off shopping and spending “their own” money. They manipulate their husbands with the power in their pocketbooks. They insist upon buying “too much house” or a McMansion that nobody actually lives in, because he is working his arse off to pay for it (at a larger percentage of his possibly smaller income), their child care bills, their revolving debt incurred by her and their entertainment budget. Let’s not forget the “everything” that their children “need”.
Sorry for all the quotes.
These women call themselves godly Christian wives, and yet they spit in the face of Jesus. They boss their husband’s around like little toddlers. They berate their husbands verbally in front of other people. They basically become like tyrannical MEN. I cannot imagine what their husbands live through, but I get to hear it – my husband employs several of these poor souls, and I work for a woman who does this to her husband.
IMHO, it is USUALLY better if the woman has never had a career before entering into biblical, covenant marriage.
@Stingray and Cane
I think we are all actually talking about the same thing. I don’t think men should not acknowledge that a sister in Christ has returned, but a special service where we pray over them publicly and talk about how special they are for turning from their former ways is out of the question to me. I have had to sit through several of these services before. They are as over the top as I have just stated. Things like this should be done by the women in private. I have no problem telling a sister that I am glad she’s back, but making it a public display is not just unnecessary but dangerous. It sets the stage for more validation being necessary.
@Everyone
I am still working on it, but I have the first 2 parts of my first lesson up on my blog.
http://josephofjackson.wordpress.com/
@ Friedrich Ludwig Bastiat
Have you read Exorbitant Privilege: The Rise and Fall of the Dollar and the Future of the International Monetary System, by Barry Eichengreen? It’s pretty good and I guess you might like it.
@Brendan –
Certainly not every reformed madeleine is capable of becoming a St. Mary of Egypt, but the outline is there; humiliation, repentance, eschewing the limelight.
Were the children in the parable of the prodigal female, would you have preferred to marry the elder or the younger?
“Feminists and their enablers have slowly shaved off the value of marriage for men.”
You say this like it’s a bad thing. It’s a wonderful thing. Misogynistic men are losing control over women who are making their own decisions. Good men like the men in my life (I guess you would refer to them as enablers) support my decisions. Happy to live in a world where I actually have a voice, choices, and a chance for equality.”
Hamsterlation:
I’m glad marriage is worthless for men, who hate women anyway. Men just want to control women and keep them barefoot, pregnant, and chained to a stove. I’m so glad I have the freedom to slut it up and have hot monkey sex with alpha studs. Then when I get tired of that (or get the clap, whichever comes first) I will marry a stoopid chump beta to support me. Right after the wedding I’ll quit sleeping with him. I’ll cheat on him with my old alpha boyfriends and have them impregnate me, so I can have my kids. Then once I’ve had my kids and they’re in school, I’ll just pull the “I’m not haaaaappy” bit and get a divorce with my guaranteed house, alimony and chilimony. After that I’ll meet my hunky millionaire handyman with washboard abs, hard butt and great pecs, and his 9 inch d**k, and he will marry me – all 45 years and 210 pounds of me – and we will live happily ever after. We will summer in Manitoba and winter in Aruba. And all will be beautiful.
Because I’m equal, dammit. And those are my choices. And don’t you forget it.
Certainly not every reformed madeleine is capable of becoming a St. Mary of Egypt, but the outline is there; humiliation, repentance, eschewing the limelight.
Sure, but it doesn’t include “validate us or we won’t repent” — which is *exactly* what is stated upthread.
Were the children in the parable of the prodigal female, would you have preferred to marry the elder or the younger?
Perhaps neither. My point is that marrying the prodigal is a big *practical* risk. Some may want to take that risk, and others may not — men should not be shamed into doing so on the basis of having rejected grace if they do not. The discussion upthread veers very uncomfortably close to this.
If we take the case of a thief or a murderer or a rapist — repentant, mind you — of course the church accepts their repentance. But it doesn’t shame the woman for not marrying the rapist, or shame the family for not letting the thief house-sit during the holiday and so on. There is a difference between accepting repentance, on the one hand, and ignoring the consequences of sin, on the other. Church culture has zippity-doo-da-nada problemo with applying this in the case of the rapist, the thief and the murderer, but WKs rush in to make damned sure it does NOT apply to the harlot (adulteress, by definition, because unmarried sex is adultery) or even to the player as long as the player goes to church. That’s crap. It’s pure white knight bullshit.
@Joseph
What? Was this ever done for men? If so, under what circumstances?
Men who want to ”control” women are not the misogynists. Its the ones who withhold rebuke and let them act any way they want.
“He who does not discipline his son, hates his son.”
Kerrie, you reject authority and spurn rebuke or correction, and surround yourself with guys who have no spine and won’t correct you, so that your illusion of greatness is not thrown askew with any truth.
Further, the established fact that children prosper best in a stable, two-parent home exposes you, as you state that its a good thing that marriage is debased. You point to “misogynists” who deserve to lose power, not understanding that the best way for a man to love a woman is with leadership and diligence (instead you carelessly and stupidly suggest they all hate women) and also not understanding that marriage is not only good for women, but supremely good for their children.
Would you cheer the undermining and harm to the children in our communities, as well as cheering the harm to the “misogynists” who hated women so much that they married one, and proclaimed their eternal love and loyalty (and resources) to her?
Would you cheer each time a child grows up with no father? Hey, they are lost and confused and destined to fail in life (and destined for terrible suffering), but at least you can have all the abortions you want without anyone telling you that you are bad. Your irony awaits, as those children grow up to be thugs who will move to harm you and yours.
Your unwillingness to receive correction or guidance is the cornerstone of your foolishness and immaturity.
The current symptom of your folly being that you have chosen to come here to spout it.
a special service where we pray over them publicly and talk about how special they are for turning from their former ways is out of the question to me.
Agreed. This is . . . unthinkable and well, disgusting and as has been said, this does not speak of redemption. Rather, it would seem to further sin.
I think what the former sluts need to do is simply try to live a better lifestyle. In try I mean they should actively honor and respect the beta male that marries them.
The problem that I think happens is in her mind she has ‘settled’ and is bitter about her beta male. If she made the effort to change her heart then she can be savalaged. It doesn’t mean it will be easy or times she resents her beta male but if she actively tries I believe things can work out. With that being said, I think most women don’t try one bit and just abuse their beta male.
@Cane and Stingray
This is done frequently at my church. It’s usually women and they usually have the service for several of them at a time. The men who come in and have this done for them are rare, but they think its a good idea for the women to feel special when they come in. When I hear Matt describing “lifting up women” this is what went through my mind. I didn’t know this wasn’t common practice.
It’s usually done every other month and at least 6 to 10 women are brought up at once. We have a big prayer over them and then there is a laying on of hands (Not guys, just women wouldn’t want any perverts touching the new virgins). People speak over their lives and pray for their success. Then the girls slowly loose interest in the church and go back to doing what they were doing before after several months of going to the stage in front of the church during the invitational before we dismiss from the service.
I’m not against treating them as human, but from what I have experienced, this kind of thing only leads to bad results and unrealistic expectations from the women that we will go out of our way to always make them feel special.
a special service where we pray over them publicly and talk about how special they are for turning from their former ways is out of the question to me.
That used to be called “camp meeting”, “tent meeting”, “revival meeting” not too many years ago.
The emotional rush involved is surely good stuff, for those who like that sort of thing. The day to day drudgery of walking away from bad behavior – even so pedestrian as “eat smaller portions” – must be pretty boring, compared to the emotional rush of being “born again”, yet again, while people cheer and applaud.
Therefore, it seems likely that such special services are providing an emotional reward for bad behavior. This emotional reward is not necessarily a rational one, so a person in the cycle (bad behavior, public renewal, emotional high, boredom, bad behavior…) could well believe that they are not driving the events, the events are “just happening to them”.
Spot on, Furious. That exact problem has been described numerous times, most specfically here and at rationalmale (Rollo Tomassi’s blog). She’s ridden the carousel for so long, had so much hot alpha d**k, that her beta man just doesn’t tingle her. Moreover, sluts’ hamsters are strong because they are very good at rationalizing . They have had to be because the slut’s conduct has been at times been… less than exemplary; and that hamster’s got to make sense out of all of it and make her look as good as possible. So if her hamster can rationalize her way into all kinds of slutty behavior, it can easily rationalize marrying the beta. But the slut knows she has to come up with good explanations. That’s why we hear the following from sluts looking to marry:
–I’ve had my fun
–I’m tired of the games
–Don’t want players
–Playas need not apply
–I’m not like that anymore
–I’m ready to settle down
–I just want a nice guy who will treat me right
–I just don’t want to get hurt again
–I just want to do it the right way this time
–I really want to wait with you. I don’t want to rush in to anything
–I want it to be a great experience with you, because you’re special
That’s why he has to be very careful about marrying a reformed slut.
Because you can bet that in her past, there were at least one or three men who didn’t have to wait to get for free after three or four hours what you’re about to pay hundreds of dollars and wait several months for.
Joseph, I’ve heard of such ceremonies in big / mega churches, but never seen one.
Your report is very useful, thanks for posting it.
@Anonymous
I just get defensive about it now because I have seen what a hypergamous stew they usually turn into. When Matt brought up lifting women who return to righteousness up, this is what entered my mind. It’s hamsterbation in the face of God himself and it pisses me off.
“Therefore, it seems likely that such special services are providing an emotional reward for bad behavior. ”
Exactly, I have no problem treating these women as people with kindness, but when I say they are treated as returning heroes, I am not talking figuratively. I want to close the loop on sin, not set them up for failure by instantly giving them a hypergamy fix when they walk in the door.
Joseph,
I understand your reaction now. That is not what Matt had in mind. Hypergamy fix, indeed. Having a special service like you described is much the same as giving a recovering heroin addict a fix on their way to recovery. I am not surprised to hear they later fall away from the church again.
Would a service like this bolster men?
Who the fuck would summer in Manitoba
@Stingray
It does work well for men. There is a public display of commitment to change his ways. It creates accountability. It also generates investment from older men in the church.
@ybm
Eskimos
Stingray, while your heroin/rehab analogy is apt, it’s actually worse than that.
These “reformed sinner” calls are more like a church accepting alcoholics by handing them a shot of vodka for communion, in my opinion. Nobody in their right mind, in any church, would do that. But apparently in some number of megachurches, no one can figure out why feeding some women’s vanity, their sense of being a Special Snowflake Princess, might just be a bad idea that is all but certain to harm, and not at all likely to help.
I think most men would be profoundly embarrassed to be part of any such “renewal” ceremony, but I could be wrong, there could be hyper-emotional drama-seeking men who would like it. I do not see how anyone would benefit from such a thing. It isn’t like joining a church, or getting married – both good things that people do in front of witnesses.
Careful readers may note that the same church that is having these ceremonies for certain women is also trying to shut down Joseph’s men-only group, a group that is discussing the real nature of women including hypergamy. Coincidence?
Eskimos summer in Edmonton.
Joseph
It does work well for men. There is a public display of commitment to change his ways. It creates accountability. It also generates investment from older men in the church.
That is interesting. I would have thought the opposite.
Question: what form does the accountability take?
Question: Is there any similar form of accountability for women who undergo their ceremony?
Hey, ybm, what have you got against MANitoba?
Must be a nice place.
Mosquitoes. MILLIONS of them. I have never seen so many insects in my entire life outside of my time in Southeast Asia. A frightening black cloud of parasites descend upon Manitoba every late spring.
Cool! Mosquitoes keep the tourists and women out, like bad roads and no trails do.
I think part of the problem is that everyone is so damned ugly in the U.S.
When a woman has a choice between 5 minutes of muscular smooth alpha vs the average beta, it’s just too much because the drop off is immense.
When the average beta A) acts like a blue pill weakling and B) doesn’t workout or diet and the alpha at least resembles a masculine man, a young woman is screaming at the thought of being with a beta. They are simply don’t have ANY primal attractive qualities whereas the alpha has much masculine attractiveness. Due to a toxic culture of mangina and McDonalds we have made the majority of men replusive to young women.
Likewise, with women. The thin ones are in the minority so just being thin skyrockets their value.
This shouldn’t be. Even average people under 30 should have some kind of physical attractiveness.
Men should have some default musclarity and have masculine chrisma.
Women should be thin and most thin women have some level of attractiveness to their face.
The only caveat is that men will screw anything as long as they don’t have to commit. Due to this women will get alpha sex and a beta male that they resent. Beta males get sexless youth and a ball busting marriage, all because of feminism and McDonalds. Ugh.
“Question: what form does the accountability take?”
FIrst, the guys are held to a VERY high standard of behavior in virtually everything they do. They also believe, whole heartedly, that if they just led correctly, that women will just follow them with no problems (inherent goodness of women). Ultimately, everything lands on the shoulders of men. We need to watch less TV, do more housework, pay more attention to the kids, listen to the wives more, work harder while at work to avoid stealing from our bosses, volunteer more at the church, attend “male leadership weekends” where we here what slouches we are at all of the above and are told to start over again. Repeat this ad nauseum and you get the idea. This is the prep for guys who were dumb enough to join up. Basically their “man up” session on steroids. They do it publicly so that everyone sees them doing it. They recite a sinners prayer and give a testimony of how they came to Jesus and then agree that changing their lives will be hard and that they church will do everything necessary to “help” them. Our singles group is intended only as a transition so that women who didn’t find a man in college have a nice pool of suitors to choose from. The guys I am working with are the bottom of the barrel. The ones that even the reformed sluts couldn’t find it in their hearts to love.
“Question: Is there any similar form of accountability for women who undergo their ceremony?”
Nope. The services are distinctly different. The men’s service is very quiet with lots of prayer and laying on of hands from both men and women. The guys are up front in a chair and sit there while all the deacons and then everyone else says a prayer over them. Then the pastor stands them up and a public announcement is made of their faith. They are then assigned a deacon to help mentor them in prayer. No clapping allowed at all during the service. The women’s service involves them sitting up front, but only women pray over them. They come up to give their testimony and go sit down to wild applause. We see them week after week following this in tears as the make their way to the front of the sanctuary to repent for this weeks sins publicly.
@Anonymous Reader —
The old school camp meeting is not at all like these slut-renewal services Joseph speaks of.
The camp meeting would consist of days of preaching by a big-name preacher. Stuff local preachers don’t preach about gets dug into in great detail. There are prayer meetings going on when people are eating and visiting. All the music and preaching culminates into the final alter call where people confess sins that they would never admit in there regular church meeting. People are crying and praying and repenting and it’s a big, big deal.
The key thing… none of these repenting people are going to necessarily go up on stage to get some spotlight time. That’s just… tacky…. (Sure, some people might go through the motions in order to do all the right things to fit in socially… but that’s something else.) If someone did get the spotlight, used to it would just be the people that were “called” to be missionaries and they might speak of how they gave up a normal life to go to the darkest jungles and whatnot [please give money], but just being a sinner? Maybe if the town drunk showed up and accepted Jesus people would start whooping it up… but you *don’t* give that guy a microphone. Throw a party for him, yes… but (a) you need to keep the meeting on message and (b) you also want to see if his new life takes hold.
The thing about most testimonies in evangelical churches…. They are 90% bad stuff done before being Christian… and then there’s not much to say about life after that. Grace is redefined as God being so good to turn a blind eye to our disobedience to Him. You hear nothing about how God is supercharging people to live right and turn away from sun day-to-day. Indeed… the word sin has all but been expurgated from Christianese vocabulary.
@ybm
6.839 x 10^14 mosquitoes
@ybm, right next to Manitoba, check out the Lake Kenora region in western Ontario. Incredibly beautiful in the summer. Great fishing too. I’m pretty sure there are a lot of places like that north of Winnipeg. But of course the pastoral doesn’t appear to be your thing.
@others … I see how the prodigal son is meant and why it matters. So yes it’s ok to celebrate someone’s return to the fold, but it’s also vitally important not to lose sight of the consequences that must still be borne. As I said before, repentance doesn’t mean those consequences go away. It just means one has had a serious change in heart and is willing to understand and assume responsibility for their past actions and its effects on current and future consequences.
Forgot to add for ybm’s benefit, Deet works real well…
@ Deti,
Thanks for the explanation of ‘hamserlation’.
Did you say Space Q36B Hamsterlation?
Why is it always about me and my rack?
😀
Just kidding…
@ Anonymous Reader,
I see I am having to eat my words now (and humble pie)!
@ tbc,
“She may be providing a very valuable service in childrearing, but it is not easily quantifiable (as in monetarily). The costs of her education, and sometimes higher higher education are quantifiable however. From a strictly economic point of view it is very wasteful to spend so many thousands on education for someone who will work full-time for a couple of years, get married, have babies, and drop out of the workforce altogether or substantially.”
Ezra also made this point…
Are you both saying then that women should not be educated then??
Is that really the best antidote to the kind of women that Ezra describes in her comment at 11:35AM, October 10th?
Really??
Hm. I would be surprised if this were the majority view.
There is only so much knitting and sewing a woman can do to ocupy her time, especially if she doesn’t have children to look after.
If she doesn’t have goals to achieve, an education to challenge her mind, a job or career to mature her, she might perhaps be MORE prone to be riding the carousel…no?
In my humble opinion, a woman is best served if she has some education as well as a healthy respect for men. Withholding education from her is not necessarily going to conjure up respect for men from her, though I agree it may keep her ‘humble’. But that would be ‘humility’ coming from a place of fear.
Ezra,
By the way, I now see where you are coming from. If you regularly encounter women like the type you describe, then no wonder you have the views on careers that you have!
I am with Stingray 100% that when someone is forced to do anything from a place of fear, it doesn’t work. That includes extra harsh slut shaming.
As Dalrock says, you gentlemen have no idea that what you say matters to women. Yes we know it doesn’t work like this the other way round, i.e. we know that what we say doesn’t matter to you (in which case what am I doing commenting on this blog lol).
By all means admonish a slut.
Don’t marry her.
But if she shows signs of real repentance, encourage her by acknowledging that good behaviour.
If she was never a slut in the first place (as in the case of the 28 year old virgin doctor that ‘M’ mentions), acknowledge it (OK, maybe not everyday lol).
We women are like that. We thrive on validation. Sure, we mustn’t be like this ALL the time, but it is innate to our nature.
And we are more likely to respond to ‘gentle criticism’ than the harsher more ‘masculine, military style’ punishment some of you are threatening to dish out. As Stingray says, you will ‘lose’ the woman in question. She will (sadly) not get to repent at all, having been turned off you forever. And she will put her hamster into overdrive by labelling you a ‘misogynist’ forever.
Some of you might say, ‘Good riddance!’ to women who react like this.
Fair enough, if it wasn’t your goal to help her to change, then fine.
I like Deti’s style. The criticism is there alright in his words. His words sting. There is no escape for the offender. But she (if she really wants to change her life) will stick around for Deti. Because he has softened the edges a bit for her.
A man may want to be treated harshly for his misdemeanours.
Most women don’t think like this.
Even those who are of the mea culpa variety may wish for a harsh punishment, but not the harshest punishment possible.
It’s just not a woman’s style…
And this is really a feature, not a bug, in the system of womanhood.
Erm, I think…
Pingback: Debased Money, Debased Marriages | Conbustible
Random Angeleno says:
October 10, 2012 at 2:36 pm
Oh lovely country over there, all the way to Thunder Bay, I just hate the bugs. I’ve had mild success fishing in Northern Ontario, much more success with Steelhead and Chinook Salmon on the West coast and river trout in the Crowsnest Pass. Much better fishing here than back home, the Adriatic is a toilet.
I do like the pasture, mountains are my preference. Fortunately my sisters care about horses because it pained my father when I didn’t want to keep up the family tradition of equestrian, the gait makes me dizzy, I prefer fast cars. My family has animals here but the vast meadows are back in Italy (if such a thing can be said to exist).
ST: It’s not so much the money spent on an education or specifically advanced, specialized degrees with women who drop out of the workforce for husband/babies, although that is a factor to consider. Further, I do not believe women “should not” ever be educated. It can be beneficial for some women to have an honest degree in a family-flexible field – provided she is able to discard all power she feels is associated with a career in this field, should her husband desire it for the sake of their family.
It’s what happens to her mental state, her belief system, her values – from being steeped in feminist culture which is drowning the university environment and most small, even religious colleges. Further, many women don’t even WANT to go to college, but their feminist mothers (and some fathers) push for this so that they can marry well, or so Mom can brag about the accomplishments of her daughter(s).
Once the girls are in the trenches of college life, it is usually a sordid story.
There are ways to get a degree online if one TRULY MUST have a degree. There is plenty to do as a stay-at-home daughter, besides needlepoint, if one is afraid of being bored or afraid of being tempted in a college dorm.
I will say that personally, I do not find much value in the average college degree for a woman these days.
Joseph, thanks for the reply and especially the detailed description, it matches things other men have told me very, very closely. Clearly these kinds of ceremonies are more common than many people realize. I wonder if it is more prevalent in larger churches, and therefore those who only attend churches with 500 or fewer members (more likely 200) are not going to see such things, therefore all of this is “news” to them?
Your description of the men’s retreat reminds me of some events that men I know have been on. It is possibly like the events run by Sheila Gregoire and her husband.
Careful readers will note in Joseph’s description the fact that men in his church are being given quite a lot of responsibility for their family, but not necessarily anywhere near the authority required to make it work. Women, on the other hand, apparently are absolved of any responsibility by going through their own ceremony. This is exactly the kind of mindset that Dalrock and various commenters have been hammering on for a couple of years now.
Responsibility and authority must be balanced. Any imbalance leads to all sorts of bad results.
The guys I am working with are the bottom of the barrel. The ones that even the reformed sluts couldn’t find it in their hearts to love. (Joseph)
Lucky guys!
Women call it “love and marriage”. We call it “bait and switch”.
Ezra,
Phew, I am relieved to see that we are both on the same side afterall…
What a shame if we weren’t…
“It’s what happens to her mental state, her belief system, her values – from being steeped in feminist culture which is drowning the university environment and most small, even religious colleges.”
Simple solution offered by me:
Counter all that feministic thinking with an ‘antifeminist education’ before, during and after the time the girl is in college. Show her (again and again if necessary) that her education is to be used responsibly – it is for the greater good of her family and community, not just a ‘feminist merit badge’, as Dalrock puts it.
It may help if the girl lives at home rather than in dorm when in college.
If she cannot see herself using that education responsibly, she doesn’t get to go to college.
How’s that?
ST: In theory, your suggestion sounds great. In reality, even the devout Baptist girls get herpes in Baptist college.
I don’t know the answer.
We homeschool. As our children get older, we will run with homeschooling circles. Our girls will probably marry a rather entrepreneurial-minded, outside-the-college-box young man who has been trained in his homeschooling to think critically instead of bowing to the liberalism in society.
So, you see: those who are truly devout Christians, walking with Jesus by reading the bible and applying it and obeying God, and insisting on the same in their daughters and sons…probably aren’t the slightest bit interested in exposing their children to liberal colleges, or even “conservative” ones. It’s just too risky because they value their children’s souls too greatly.
I am not saying that women should not be educated. I’m saying that the cost of many (not all) women’s educational pursuits is borne by other people and the notion that women can have it all stems from this at least in part.
Men know, “if I don’t go to college I will have to find a trade or something. Maybe I will do okay, maybe not but I’m likely to make more money if I go. Either way it’s up to me to sort.”
Women know, “I can go to college or not and still manage to be okay if I snag a good enough husband. In fact I can go to college and increase the chance of getting a high earner.”
“That is why these former Churchian (like myself) guys actually go through the stages of grief upon taking the Red Pill.”
Got that right… Still in that somewhere. . .
“It’s the same story everywhere I go. They grow up in church, go off and rebel, come back and repent, and are lauded as hero’s returned home…”
The parable of the lost son, but with one major change. No added consequences! The son that returns home was welcomed, but would have faced consequences. His health would have been affected. He would have to rebuild trust with people. His decisions would be questioned.
We dont see that in modern churches. We see man up and marry the (redeemed) sluts lectures.
@ tbc,
Thanks for your explanation.
I get the first paragraph alright.
But this I am having trouble with:
“Men know, “if I don’t go to college I will have to find a trade or something. Maybe I will do okay, maybe not but I’m likely to make more money if I go. Either way it’s up to me to sort.”
Women know, “I can go to college or not and still manage to be okay if I snag a good enough husband. In fact I can go to college and increase the chance of getting a high earner.””
Erm, is there anything wrong with a woman thinking as you describe?
Maybe I misunderstand your comment somewhat…
I would have thought that it is the smart women who go to college with husband-hunting in mind.
Those who are actually in college for the studies are few, yes, even I accept this!
And then there are those who are there ‘to have fun’.
These 2 latter categories do miss out on the husband thing, of course. The third category suffer more than the second category (in general).
But the first category are the cleverest of all, no?
At least the men in The Manosphere who advise their sisters and daughters about life say so.
So…such a woman gets an education AND a husband. 2 birds with one stone.
Sounds like a good deal to me…
I suspect you may be indicating by your comment that ‘this is life and you accept it like this’. In which case, sorry for my obtuse response.
If however you are admonishing women for thinking like this, then you are effectively judging a woman as you would a man, and given her biological imperative (to snag a mate and provider for herself and her soon-to-be-born-offspring-hopefully) she HAS to think and act differently from a man.
Otherwise the feminists really would have won. Afterall, they are the ones who would have us all become ‘equal’ and identical…kind of like some freaky genderless beings.
Which is of course…wrong.
ST: I don’t really mean to describe anything as right or wrong, but just as I see it. My description is actually quite inadequate for my meaning.
Ezra,
“In reality, even the devout Baptist girls get herpes in Baptist college.”
If this is true…then
1. I’d be surprised and
2. The parental education didn’t go far enough, perhaps.
The education from parent to child has to be internalised for it to work…clearly.
Is it possible to homeschool your children to college level or equivalent?
In which case don’t you have to be of college-level education yourself?
I genuinely wish to know. I have no idea about homeschooling.
You may have encountered this question before as a homeschooling Mum. But I will ask it because I am sure others are thinking of the same question:
What happens after homeschooling? Are you confident your children will emerge capable of dealing with ‘life on the outside’ so to speak?
Do your children feel in any way ‘cocooned’? I hope not, of course, but I do wonder if this is an issue with homeschooled children…
@Joseph
First, I’m revolted. As Stingray said, that’s not what I had in mind. Actually, what happens with the men is more what I thought you were talking about. That seems…like a ritual that might have been a good idea at the time, but has gotten out of hand. I was raised SBC, but because of drifts like this, I keep moving closer to Roman Catholicism. Still not there yet.
AR made a good point about celebrating joining a church, because that’s what should really be happening. Those women (and men) should have been kicked out; shunned. This is their coming home. Extending this to current members, or people who go in and out of church is perverse.
When you join the Anglican church, several people join at once, and there’s a feast afterwards. Before that you get slapped by the bishop. It’s too soft, but it’s still an awesome sign of authority and importance of the occasion. It literally smacks of the parent-child relationship. Good stuff.
Anyone: Do RC’s do this?
This, by the way, would be the problem in turning repentant women over to just women’s care without male oversight. Even removing this service (and godspeed with that!) would just make this heroes return happen in a pure XX environment. That’s what you’re suffering now, it sounds like.
@Deti
I don’t advocate “man up and marry the slut”. More like “pray up and help the sluts who want help.”
Are you joking or being serious?? To much of a high risk investment for the return on equity. As much as well all suffer from bounded rationality on occasion this is just plain asking for trouble. Do you know of any that have reformed? sucessfully?
I’ve heard some Opus Dei places do similar things like group Centering Prayer BS. They say it is a form of Lectio Divina but its not, its divination in my opinion.
@Deti
Well, I agree with your consideration of the question of choice, and that men too will excercise their choice. In the meanwhile women, like the child in the candy shop, want to have it all. (My Hamsterlator is in for repairs at the moment as it broke down on its last outing.)
It puts me in mind of a web-site I have just been looking at today, for a company called Dress for Success. It is solely for women. A video by the lady chief-executive trotted out some mantras all about empowerment etc – much as a magician might use words like abracadabra and with as little sense. A closer analysis leads to questions such as: Why do women need to dress for success – seeing men clearly don’t? Is the dressing well the beginning and end of the success? Is dressing well all that women need to do for success and would success without dressing well be less successful? If not what exactly is the success, and how would it be measured? Why (seeing only women can be mothers) is success seen in those things which men had simply no choice but to do, in the old days? Does success lead to the perfect man, perhaps, and is that why they are dressing up? In short it looks like posing.
‘Why do women need to dress for success – seeing men clearly don’t? ‘
Men certainly do dress for success at least in the corporate world. Looking sharp in a tailored suit is a must for corporate climbers.
All your questions can be answered by the following. They are copying behaviors of business alpha males. Plain and simple.
Opus
Well, they are trying to sell expensive clothes to suckers. Dressing for success is sold as an idea to men too. As for women making a big production out of doing what men have always done, this is also business as usual.
ST: I agree, as parents, our values have to permeate our children’s hearts, not just their heads, in order to bring forth fruit of righteousness. Sometimes, the external forces of the college environment are just TOO STRONG for the young person to resist, no matter the moral training. It’s just so bad. My son was in a large University in Texas last year; he lasted a semester. It ate him up, and I’m glad he’s out of there – his father (we’ve been divorced over twenty years) pushed for him to go and live on campus. There was nothing I could do. I had previously homeschooled him, but it was brief. After many years, I remarried, and my husband and I have several children and we are homeschooling the eldest now. They are very small yet, but having homeschooled a junior-high student under the mentorship of a homeschooling mother who had high-schoolers, yes, you can homeschool them into college. Internet programs, correspondence courses, etc. depending upon the field of study. Obviously something like nursing is going to require attendance at a facility and a lab/internship on and off campus.
Depends upon what state you live in regarding what educational requirements the parent must have achieved. It’s not very stringent. Yet. If you have a larger family, the “socialization” that people often believe is missing in a homeschooled student really isn’t, because of the siblings. There are co-ops; I always took my son twice a week. This way the children have friends and partners in “homeschool” – and they have fun, too! There are debate teams and the equivalent of public school UIL competitions, only for the homeschooled: spelling, writing, essay competition, etc. just as they would have in school, only without the indoctrination of worldly values.
Cane, no we RCs don’t do that in my experience.
Thank God my church doesn’t have public confession and women speaking. It cuts down on the female drama considerably.
@ybm and DC
I was actually asking about the slap at confirmation.
Though, I am glad to hear that the RCs still do not ape all the circuses of American Evangelical Protestants.
@ybm and DC
Vatican II strikes again…or not. From Wikipedia
Its been said before, but is worth repeating. It is not what a woman says that matters, but what she does. Actions have consequences.
Playing career woman is a contradiction. They may start down that path with no serious intent. But work is consuming. Men know that. Women do not.
A woman that plays at a career reduces her mmv. Years in college and at work is time she has lost and will never get back. If she marries, she may be unable to cook, know nothing about raising children, and outsource their care asap.
The children are socialised to become unthinking adults that never really grow up:
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/
The womans career becomes her idol, whether she acknowledges it ot not. Husband and children are laid at the foot of the idol. The children see what she does and learn from it.
What manner of Eve voluntarily assumes the curse of Adam, just to feel fulfilled?
Answer: the self focussed one. Solipsism triumphs. We all lose.
oh. Yes I was but I was confirmed by a French centenarian.
@Deti
I enjoyed your hamsterlation of the Kerrie.
What strikes me about her post, is that she is now equal and makes her own choices (choices made possible by anti-male legislation and male invented technology), and yet although all other men are women-haters, and presumably their one pleasure in life is hating women, her men aren’t like that at all; indeed they support what she does – as if somehow to be free and equal and independent, Kerrie first needs their support; thus undermining her claim to independence.
What, of course, Kerrie fails to see (even if all other men are mysogynists) is that the choices to abandon wifedom and motherhood, apart from being the consequence of male inventions (such as the pill), can only lead her to a life of chastity/slutdom, with no more personal or home satisfaction than that of a bachelor – something most men are, or were, happy to escape from. Men seek success for the possibility of attracting women. What do women do it for? – other than impressing each other, for as we know, success at work is not in itself any form of attractant to men. In short, assuming work is as it must be, routine, boring and long, one can only suppose she is or wishes to pose. As usual the apex factor seems to be at work.
To equate marriage, as she does, merely as mysogyny – done deliberately to enslave females is (although doubtless it did happen) to show a woeful grasp by her of history – singledom is what all those Jane Austen heroines are anxious to avoid. It also solipsistic to a fault. Men don’t want to enslave women; they want to fuck them! Sadly we can all predict that in a few short years her tune will have turned to – where are all the good men? – why won’t those Peter Pans man up? – but why should any man want to do that for such an empowered and independent person as Kerrie and her misandrism? May she have many cats.
‘Touch of the cheek’ is a much better description, I don’t remember it being a slap, and I probably would have remembered it if it had been.
tbc writes:
Full stop? I’m just getting started.
Did our Lord and Savior, Christ Almighty dare to call a Canaanite a dog? Is he so ethnocentric that he “was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”? That Jesus, what a xenophobe.
You want to make blanket pronouncements and draw boundary lines all over my faith? Then cite something more authoritative than memories of Benetton ads and posters that exhort “Eracism!” hanging on your sixth grade classroom wall.
Your brand of inert assertion does not move me. If it moves or otherwise intimidates others into silence, then they are cowards (FULL STOP). Yours is typical, multiculti prejudice imbibed with your mother’s milk, and you have finally met a man who is not intimidated by the Scarlet R. Just because you have failed to examine the presumptions behind your inherited prejudices doesn’t mean we all suffer from the same smug and debilitating ignorance. But it is not just simple ignorance, is it? You don’t know, and not only do you not know what you don’t know, you’re not even aware that you don’t know.
Matt
Joseph writes:
I have zero experience with any of these appalling Oprahtastic neorituals that you snake-handling protestants have adopted. The rituals of the church are sacramental and trace directly to Christ and the first Christians, instituted by God himself, and tested by twenty centuries. No wonder you’re freaking out at my straightforward speech: you interpret it as code words calling for the sabotage that renegade cults and secular ideologies have been practicing for half-a-millennium against the Bark of Peter. Be not afraid, for your Lord has promised, “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The truth cannot be altered by all the powers and principalities this world can muster, much less a gaggle of estrogen-addled hens who read too much CosmoGirl.
Yours is a typical problem of Protestantism and the Reformation, which, right in time for its 500th anniversary in 2018, will begin coming to a close: it has done its necessary work.
“You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it.” Fairly straightforward.
Matt
Cane, I was surprised to read that. I thought the slap symbolism was still in place. I thought I had seen it done in recent years. It certainly is in the Extraordinary Form (Latin), which I was confirmed in. And would still be.
I think what hurts most about Vatican II (not that it was all bad) is that so much of the poetry was lost.
I was confirmed Roman Catholic about 6 years ago and there was no slap.
David Collard writes:
Now here is a genial cove who deserves respect!
I certainly am enthusiastic about “baiting” blacks because they have suffered from our SWPL timidity for too long. See the liberal Democrat Patrick Moynihan’s seminal work, “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action” and “Defining Deviancy Down,” from back when we were still allowed to speak frankly about the “very colourful.” This necessary work is not to everyone’s tastes, I will grant you, because whites prefer to imagine rainbow harmonies and “talking out our differences.” Meantime, a black mayor of D.C. gets in trouble for using the word “niggardly.” Broadcasters get suspended for saying “a chink in his armor.”
What self-respecting man, when faced with such cartoonish judgments from chin-pulling, 98-pound hipster-queer intellectuals, would do anything but laugh and tell them to get themselves scarce?
I believe you are Australian, so perhaps you do not understand the unhealthy obsession we have with race in the States. It pervades every atom of every social space we have. I am not allowed freely establish one-on-one friendships (or to reject association with pathologically antisocial customs) without factoring in racial calculations. It bugs me. It also bugs me that unaccomplished dweebs like tbc can wax self-righteous about which words I can and cannot say, or indeed, which thoughts I can and cannot have.
I already have a religion replete with authorities and commandments and strictures, thank you very much. I was born into my faith, but I also freely confirmed it when I became a man, and I continue to confirm it each Sunday when I publicly announce the Nicene Creed and at least once a year when I renew my baptismal oaths on Easter Vigil. These race-besotted PC-bots who sniff out every possible, minute deviation from their creed scream like Invasion of the Body Snatchers pod people whenever they happen upon someone who accidentally violates their “sensitivities” (much less the full freak out that occurs when they meet someone like me who unapologetically instructs them to cram it up their ass).
I would almost respect their zeal if they understood they were promulgating a creed that they actively chose. But they are unaware of the idols they worship above their nominal gods, simply because they have never been introduced to serious dissent. I am the dissent.
Matt
matt – I stand by what I said. Racism is antithetical to Christ — full stop.
If you have a problem with that take it up with Christ not with me.
As for the rest of what you said, it isn’t really worth a reply.
Yes, Matt, I am an Australian. I have observed the American obsession with race.
I was going to say earlier, Cane, that Australians are not a demonstrative people, which probably also explains why we don’t do the public witness in church thing.
Stingray, I am sorry to hear that. So much for the Church Militant.
BTW, I apologise for our shrieking harpy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, whose fishwife tones are now some kind of YouTube sensation. We have an election in about a year. I doubt she will be around after that.
Cane Caldo writes:
Swim across the Tiber, brother. Our orderliness has kept the relativism at bay. We can use you, and most serious and intellectual Christians end back here anyway.
Vatican II was the revolution, and the John Paul II pontificate was the counterrevolution. Benedict XVI is now slowly ratifying his predecessor’s corrections in such a way that does not produce upheavals among the faithful. These ancient and worthy and meaningful practices were never extinguished, they were just mothballed while the postmodern riot was going on outside. Piece by piece they will be restored, as they have been in the authorization of the Tridentine mass and the new, less pansified English translation of the liturgy.
I was not born into the old Latin ways, and I do not have much enthusiasm for a return to head-veils and stuffy formalism and ethnic cults of the Virgin Mary. To each his own: it is good to be Catholic, for “in my father’s house are many mansions,” many ways to find and express one’s faith, tailored to every human type. In terms of feminism, which we are only now just starting to publicly roll back, the church was the only refuge for decades that didn’t turn itself inside out to conform with the new zeitgeist. Plenty of damage was done, yes, but the gates of hell have not prevailed.
What remains, and is coming back in a big way, is the solemnity. You can go to any number of evangelical side shows to get your boisterous Jesus on, but nobody does silence, awe, respect, and fear of the Lord like the Petrine tradition. We still have the hangar-sized cathedrals in which you can hear a church mouse peeing on cotton. Silence enough to hear the “still, small voice.”
Matt
What remains, and is coming back in a big way, is the solemnity.
I truly hope this is true. We go to the most conservative Church in our area (less the Tridentine Mass done nearby which we are hoping to start going to very soon) and we don’t even say the Nicene Creed every Sunday to save time. The other Catholic churches in our area have folding chairs and no longer kneel. Drums and guitars can be found during many of the masses. It’s depressing and incredibly frustrating.
All
I like the conversation and have an idea on the “heroes” return of the slut to the church. In stringrays initial comment in response to this (They need to be made to shut up and listen, or walk. This would be a truer test of salvation, to see how committed she is to fighting her base desires.) from Joseph is a tell on what will be most effective. The male guidances would be to inform the women still present that theyleft to return to the carousel. The men need to let the women know that each individual man will decide if a woman is worthy. A good christian leader will teach the men how to vet a woman with a wordlyknowledge of female nature. With the bottom line being all in the church knows no woman is entitled to anything from any one from the church male or female. And anything recieved is a gift to be view as such. Each man needs to understand those sluts are there for God to accept their souls and not there to replace the alpha asshole dick with the beta chump dick. The christian men need to have the emotional and spiritual ability to let the repentant slut know this with confidence. No rings for sluts but there will be a place in heaven for you.
Stay extremely firm and the slut will relearn to bond. The herd will shift. Supplicate and you achieve nothing. Stingrays comment was a shit test. We failed it up to now. (I sure hope what I am trying to get acrooss is understood.)
hey heartistez!!!!
at my church i am tyring to strat a GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN club for all teh youngz menz so they can get in otutch with tehir rightrulful heritage
i was gonna ask advcie at dalrockz blog, but dalrock likes deleteing my posts to make room for all da holy-roller holier-than-thou “i buttehxtex lots but jesus forgives me” chruchians.
there are far mroe practcicing christinas here, ion teh sense of jesus’s teahcigz
so went tyo da ministerz at my church and i a siad, ” i am tyring to strat a GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN club for all teh youngz menz so they can get in otutch with tehir rightrulful heritage. can i please have some funding fiat dollarz for this noble exalted proejetcz?”
and the pleaseant nice minister shook his head and said sorry they are short of udnd short of fundingz as they just launched the “sitserhood of sore buttholes in search of beta providerzs to marry” bible study gourp group and they needed all teh funding to go to the mall for makeoverz to get rid of da 35 year old wrinkles so as the damn betas just weren’t manning up and marrying demz, and dey extra cash to get sitterz for all der bastard kidz zlzzllzlzlzolozlzlzlzozlzoz
Good luck with that, Stingray. I have attended many Extraordinary Form (Latin) masses in recent years. They are good for decorum and seriousness. I found a home there for a while, but due to relatively poor health over the last year, I have not been so often of late. Also, I doubt that Traditionalism is the whole answer. I am lucky that the English masses here are not too bad.
The vulgarisation of the mass seems to be what people want, in many cases, unfortunately.
David,
Thank you. And here’s to your improved health.
@ Ezra,
Thank you for the info on homeschooling.
I wish I could one day do it, but I suspect I wouldn’t be able to. Not for long anyway. Despite being the daughter of two teachers, I am not exactly blessed with the teaching gene!
But I like the idea of it…
And kudos to you for doing it.
Sorry to hear about your son’s experience in college.
I too stayed in dorm for the first year of college. But by the end of it, I had had enough. The ‘nocturnal activities’ next door were rather deafening and I was starting to lose sleep. The following years of college I was back at home.
I guess it’s a personal thing. It is not the education per se which corrupts. You are right – it’s the feminist indoctrination that seeps in slowly. Young women should be taught to reject it. But first, they should learn how to recognise it.
When I hear words like ’empowered’ or ‘it’s my body’, I know to run far away from whoever uttered them…
Because I know there would be more nonsense to come…
Such as…’being a prostitute is ’empowering” as was uttered by Brooke Magnanti recently…
Such as…’abortion is right because it gives a woman ‘freedom of choice’ with respect to her body’.
As the British say, bollocks to that…
@CaneCaldo
I can’t speak for all the Evangelical circus shows but when a church departs from holy writ. Behold the freak show.
Kenite-definition thereof:
A tribe first mentioned in company with the Keniz-zites and Kadomonites (Gen 15:19)
That they were a branch of the nation of Midian is shown from the fact that Jethro,who in Exodus (eg 2:15,16,and 4:9) is represented as dwelling in Midian,and as priest or prince of that nation,is in Judges (1:16,4:11) said to have been a Kenite.
Revelation 2:8
“And unto the angel of the church of Smyrna write;These things saith the first and the last,which was dead and is alive;
I know thy works,and tribulation,and poverty,(but thou are rich)and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are the Jews,and are not,but are the synagogue of Satan.
Rev 2:14
“But I have a few things against thee,because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel,to eat things,sacrificed to idols,and to commit fornication.
So hast thous also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans,which thing I HATE. (Christ speaking of the ethic origins of the doctrines he HATES.
Rev 2:20
“Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee,because sufferest that woman Jezebel,which calleth herself a prophetess,to teach and *seduce* my servants to commit fornication,and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
And I gave her space to repent of her fornication;and she repented not.
Behold, I will cast her into a bed,and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation,except they *repent* of their deeds.
And I will kill her children with death;and all the churches shall know
I am he which searcheth the reins and the hearts:and I will give unto every one of you according to your *works*.
Rev 3:9
“Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan,which say they are Jews,and are not,but do lie;behold,I will make them to come and worship before thy feet,and to know that I have loved thee.”
The bible says, “and the two are no longer two, but ONE and what God has brought together, let no man separate”
The Lord designed us as spirit and flesh, only in sexuality do the two join in an act. This is why the Scriptures are so adamant about sexual purity. Bed hoppers are joining themselves to others spiritually and each “episode” that fails does severe harm.
This goes a long way toward explaining all the blaring music, the alcohol, the drugs, the risky hobbies (adrenaline rush), body mutilation, travel (escapism), sports fanaticism, atheism (screw your rules, I’m my own God), etc. People who are damaged goods trying to run away from their rotten life decisions or at least distract themselves from the cold reality of their choices.
Since almost everyone has sex at some point in their life, the commonality of the act makes people think it is not a significant act. This is a huge mistake. Most preachers don’t speak on this point because they can’t without being a hypocrite, I would think most of us fall into this category with the preachers vs instructing our children.
I do believe God forgives, and people can change, but deep spiritual damage has been done and we, being weak humans, are usually not equipped to fight the spiritual warfare necessary to remain pure once forgiven. The allure of human sexuality is mindlessly powerful!
I agree with Deti et al, that a true reformed slut is a rarity. Most of us are not discerning enough spiritually to recognize a true repentant person from a clever liar.
Marriage (not recommended in the current climate) should be preceded by some hard time on your knees asking for clear signal from God. (think Gideon and the sheep skin, Moses and the burning bush, the reversal of the sun dial, parting the red sea…you know…CLEAR signs, not fickle human emotions).
So, reformed sluts…we cannot get away from the fact that they (male or female) are damaged goods and not fit marriage material. Anyone who marries a bed hopper is taking a huge risk.
For those who appreciate visuals:
http://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/hypergamy/
(screw your rules, I’m my own God)
Yep,by golly, and there is no racism
In Christianity,full top!
Hah ha!
The one thing the synagogue fights to protect the hardest is the idea that they (satan) actually exist.Seems to be some church goes never read the bible.Take the time,it’s only one book,as has the accumulated wisdom of all humankind.
GBFM- and the pleaseant nice minister shook his head and said sorry they are short of udnd short of fundingz as they just launched the “sitserhood of sore buttholes in search of beta providerzs to marry” bible study gourp group and they needed all teh funding to go to the mall for makeoverz to get rid of da 35 year old wrinkles so as the damn betas just weren’t manning up and marrying demz, and dey extra cash to get sitterz for all der bastard kidz zlzzllzlzlzolozlzlzlzozlzoz
“sisterhood of sore buttholes”?????
THAT is hilarious.
Pingback: Father Know’s Best: Dalrock’s Donnerstag Dozen « Patriactionary
Some problems are universal Hahahaha
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/opinion/global/chinas-leftover-women.html?ref=global-home&_r=0
check this out http://eternalbachelor.wordpress.com/2007/07/02/woes-of-a-childless-spinster/
good way to get some attention of a slut.
Nas: funny article… those Chinese feminists sound like they’ve been reading the US manosphere. Glad we could help them solve their woman problems with solid, practical advice.
I had thought there was a huge excess of single men in China, but that hardly warrants a mention. So, yes, some problems are universal.
@
freebird says:
October 11, 2012 at 11:21 am
“(screw your rules, I’m my own God)
Yep,by golly, and there is no racism
In Christianity,full top!
Hah ha!”
I have no idea what you are talking about here…and racism????
Reblogged this on Life Topics and commented:
Very good food for thought!
Brilliant! Great satirical post. Could almost be taken as sincere but for that whole ‘women = possessions’ tone the whole way through. As if anyone really thinks like that in 2012! Hilarious.
@greyghost
The good ol’ Duncan Idaho. My first point of contact with the manosphere (found by visiting the wikipedia page for Bachelor). I hope he is well, wherever he is.
well.. i believe marriage was, are and will be always women business, i red many users here who wish to try better luck abroad.. maybe a nice woman from the former soviet union..
wel things are changing even there.. russian wimmnz start to be femminist too, and they decide to date only men from other countries BUT they also want to be as any other women who live elsewhere.. be selfcentered and chasing money..
“Be prepared for matriarchy,” The Beast. “It is approaching.”
http://wire.inc.com/2012/06/05/russian-women-ditching-marriage-to-start-businesses/
good luck tavarish american single man looking for love abroad..
Holy shit, seeing GBFM type in proper english, I give him more respect and realize he’s not just some blathering idiot spouting the latest conspiracy thing he heard but that he might actually know something…
I have read enough of GBFM’s writing to fairly judge him. Here is my final assessment of his posts:
Please do not ever post again until you have 1) a spell-checker, 2) a proof-reader, and 3) a cessation of someone adulterating your drugs. Your posts are of negative value, and I skip over all of them unread, as I (a male) would skip an advertisement for a vagina yeast cream.
Oh, and the place for reformed sluts isn’t as wives to good men. It’s in a convent, or the modern equivalent (low pay, low status, celibate, and OBEDIENT). Other than those two, the only fully traditional roles for women were as prostitutes or martyrs. Nunnery looks pretty good compared to the last two, yes?
I really really cant wait to share this hilarious drivel with my colleagues tomorrow – much mirth to be had by all. Loving the hate-speak you’ve coined to make your arguments sound pseudo-intellectual. Some of the articles even have graphs, and numbers. Must be REAL then. What planet are you all ON! How many of you have travelled outside the US, stepped outside your comfort zone, engaged with the world unfamiliar, with life, with difference, with others, with people who are not like you and dont think like you and dont ever wish to ? Would you see past your own small world opinions and just let others be. Let people get on with their lives? With the business of being human. There isnt a scheming woman behind every door nor is there a requirement for a
man to rule over her. Some, shock horror, are actually financially independent and quite happy on their own. There are also men and women who regard each other as equal partners, is this concept so foreign?, There are no rules, there are no winners, and there are no black and white statements to be made about anyone and anything. We are all different, we are all flawed, we are all just trying to get by. Why does this hate site exist?
@jane:
There are no rules, …
Nice rule.
…and there are no black and white statements to be made about anyone and anything.
That’s a pretty black and white statement. I’d suggest that attempts to categorically rule out categorical statements are going to run into logical problems rather quickly.
Pingback: Traditional marriage is a threat to the values of single women « Wintery Knight
I see Jane (at 6.59pm on the 16th October) never got back to us to tell us of her colleagues reaction to the “hilarious drivel” and “hate speech” which we have “coined to make our arguments sound pseudo-intellectual”. She asks why, having noticed that some articles utilise “graphs and numbers” this “hate site” exists. Pity, as her return would have been an excellent opportunity to give my newly repaired Q36B a work out.
An MRA valuing woman’s chastity and talking of marriage? What????????
Pingback: Manosphere: Virginity vs Sluttery (Part 2) | 3rd Millenium Men
Pingback: Update #3 « Manosphere Links
I am only getting pumped and dumped and hit the wall in my late 30’s realizing my SMP and MPV are low. This causes greater pain and emotional scarring than sometimes I can even handle on my own, I need faith. Yes I did ride the cock carousel those college years were crazy and they dont’t make you a good wife and mother.
I finally married a man at 30 and we had a family. We were together for some years but he was sick and died. My fears of being alone again are always creeping up as well as the acceptance I must have of being a widow with cats.
Even coming to realization these are the consequences of my choices, that I was influenced by lies feminism absent father and slut mother so much damage has been done. I wish more women read these blogs on the manosphere. We all need to wake up!
Pingback: Does N Count Matter? | The Karamazov Idea
Pingback: Another crack in the narrative | Dalrock
Pingback: What is the manosphere? | Dalrock
I found this blog on accident. Reading this post made me feel a bit sick to my stomach.
Pingback: A License For Profane Wickedness. | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: Conservatives ask: Who is John Galt? | Dalrock
Pingback: Rethinking the marriage wage premium. | Dalrock
This article might as well have read:
“Marriage for men no longer means:
* Having complete control of the family.
* Being able to legally rape your wife.
* Have full control over your children
* An inability for your wife to divorce you.”
Unless you happen to agree that wives should be able to rape you then it’s an extension of freedom, not “debasement.”
Pingback: The Decay of Wisdom, and Why the Gay Marriage Debate Misses the Point | Retrophoebia
Pingback: Why men are withdrawing from courtship. | Dalrock
Pingback: I am Single Again (And I Should Have Been All Along) | The Reinvention of Man
Doesn’t really explain what the benefits of marriage were for women under the old system… or the new. If you have the financial independence that comes with having a degree you don’t need monetary support. If you live in a non-terrible country you don’t need security. You don’t even need to have sex to have children, and can put away some money for it before having them if you’re financially independent. The one benefit marriage still has (for both genders) is commitment and companionship, and it can be achieved without the institution itself. This was the point all along of course, to make marriage a neutral extension of a loving companionate relationship rather than maintaining it as a system in which each has to make sacrifices in order to achieve that (and women had to make rather more sacrifices).
Coin debasing has long been a misogynist metaphor for women’s virtue going downhill, though. You can find it in such plays as (Shakespeare contemporary) Thomas Middleton’s “A Chaste Maid in Cheapside.” It’s almost like every single generation of men since time immemorial has believed this was happening.
You can always rely on a self-loathing male to use the word Gender where he means Sex.
Opus, are you saying treef is male? You must be analyzing things through a different set of lenses than I am. Treef’s offering reads to me like the hamster droppings of a StrongEmpoweredWoman[TM].
@Feeriker
That is the way I call it. Treef continuously refers to women as if they are different, whereas most female commenters here are only too keen to let you know they are the owners of a vagina – Treef is too indifferent to be personally offended; neither does the name Treef in itself suggest female. I may be wrong, of course, but in my experience a drive-by woman wants to let you know all about herself.
Treef (whether male or female) refers to Thomas Middleton’s play A Chaste Maid in Cheapside as evidence to support an accusation against Dalrock of Misogyny. I cannot say whether Chaste Maid uses the coin-clipping analogy (and I don’t mean to check) but it does advise that Welsh females are likely to be whores and four centuries has certainly not improved their reputation for chastity. Cheapside (birthplace incidentally of both John Milton and John Keats) was a place of ill-reputation hence the play’s title. Many of Middleton’s heroines (unlike Shakespeare’s) are unchaste, but it is surely disengenious to assert that because there have always been unchaste women that the present crop of females are no different from women of former times. Outside of prostitution there has, as is all too easy to observe, never been so many women acting on their sexual inclinations and the rise in false accusations of Rape and Indecent Assault is surely a reflection of this rather than of a sudden change in male reticence. The proof of the coin-clipping analogy is that men are – to some extent – simply walking away from women with high Partner counts much as in past ages they would have avoided marrying whores. Casual perusal of the pages of Plenty of Fish reveals shoals of thirty-something women bewailing their missing of the boat and with little chance of being caught. Their age does not help but neither does their sexual-past.
treef, whether male or female, doesn’t get it. I’ll hereafter refer to treef as male for simplicity’s sake and on the strength of Opus’ observation. He wrote this:
This is one of the more absurd things I’ve read here in a while. He believes that marriage only has a single benefit: commitment and companionship. (That looks like a list of two to me, but I’ll let that go as a rhetorical flourish). Of course it is not clear why commitment is a benefit – if someone is deeply committed to killing me or making my life miserable, their commitment to do so would not be beneficial to me at all – quite the contrary, in fact.
But even though he views commitment in the good way, his statement fails. We know that an extensive sexual history makes a woman much less likely to stick with her commitment than if she did not have that history. We’ve been discussing this very topic recently in another thread recently, and have done so extensively in the past. A woman offering commitment who is not going to provide it – and commitment implies permanence – is indeed like a clipped coin, in that she is offering a debased version of what she purports to offer (temporary commitment presented and sold as permanent commitment). But she gets to extract the full face value of what she bought with debased currency: alimony means that she gets his ongoing provision in exchange for her temporary commitment. So the clipped coin analogy fits, after all.
He then compounds his error by exhibiting historical ignorance, while presuming to lecture us about history. Defining “marriage [as] a neutral extension of a loving companionate relationship” was most assuredly NOT the point all along… anywhere… ever. Marriage – all along – has of course been, “a system in which each has to make sacrifices” – although men, as the more capable sex, have had to shoulder the greater share of the burden. The main reasons why men and (to a lesser degree) women made sacrifices to be married were sex, provision for women, and the bearing and rearing of legitimate children.
As for companionship, that can be had outside of marriage. And, like commitment, it requires qualification. My great-grandmother was fond of the old Spanish saying, “Mejor solo que mal acompañado” – Loosely translated as, “Better to be alone than in bad company.” Let’s face it – many women are poor companions. Before treef retorts that “many men are bad companions, too” I’ll point out that husbands have a better track record of treating their wives well than the other way around. Plus, if a husband’s bad conduct results in divorce he is usually – at best – no better off than when he started, while if a wife’s bad conduct results in divorce she usually gets cash-n-prizes… at her victim’s expense.
Finally, his statement that wives had to make “rather more” sacrifices than their husbands requires proof. He makes the statement as if it were self-evident, but it is anything but. Declarations of feminist talking points do not constitute evidence. I’d like to know why treef thinks that wives sacrifice(d) more in marriage than husbands, when every bit of historical and contemporary evidence suggests the opposite: often by a very wide margin.
You are all hypocrites. Women have respectfully given you their perspectives and you accuse them of ad hominem attacks and being self-centered when in reality that is exactly what you are doing. You believe you are entitled to a virtuous woman, but I tell you that any woman would be lucky to escape a marriage to one as selfish as any of you. So to those of you who have sworn off marriage, thank you and good riddance.
Pingback: Are young, unmarried women sincere when they say they want to be married “some day”? | Wintery Knight
A Sane Person… isn’t.
Pingback: Are young, unmarried women sincere about wanting to be married “some day”? | WINTERY KNIGHT
Pingback: Ladders & Snakes |
Pingback: She wants 2.3 more years of sex with other men before she settles for you. | Dalrock
Pingback: A Response to Stephanie’s Comments | Σ Frame
Pingback: Fake Knights and Phony Princesses | Σ Frame
Pingback: Zeitgeist Report 2018 | Σ Frame
Pingback: 2017 Never Married Data | Dalrock