We’ve been covering some incredible ground recently in what has been coined the “Christian Manosphere”. While some have mocked us for rediscovering what countless generations already knew, I see our agreement with pre-modern Christianity on the topic of biblical marriage as a very reassuring sign that we are on the right track.
While there is productive disagreement within the sphere which allows us to learn and correct errors, there is also a passive aggressive backlash. Vox Day’s recent posts on the blogging style of what he terms gammas, the men one step above omegas in the “socio-sexual hierarchy” is uncanny in its description of this dynamic. From Vox’s most recent post on the topic:
Gammas find direct conflict particularly difficult because they don’t customarily engage in it. They habitually engage in female-style indirect conflict, where rhetoric is are the battlefield and the sly passive-aggressive shot taken with plausible deniability is the weapon of choice.
From his post immediately prior:
Notice that whereas the ALPHA points (links and identifies) and laughs (is genuinely amused), the gamma avoids (refuses to link, refuses to even name), and alternates between feigned laughter, feigned indifference, and genuine anger. Confrontation and contempt are alpha. Evasion and sniping from safety are gamma.
Manosphere blogger Samson’s Jawbone left a series of bizarre comments on this site back on Dec 30th. In this one and this one he complained that he wished he could unknow what he now knows about women and attraction, as he has become cynical:
I do actually agree that over-immersion in the manosphere makes one cynical and removes some of the romance from life, forever. Whether this outweighs the benefits of learning the truth is unclear, but I think it’s more important than I used to. I often wish I had my innocence back.
This really surprised me at the time, because understanding women better has only increased my empathy for them. This is true despite my continued willingness to call out bad behavior by women. In reality unless you are consumed by bitterness the object of calling out bad behavior should be at least in part for the benefit of those you are correcting. My improved understanding of and empathy for women has helped me when offering advice to women on the blog and at Yahoo Answers, and my wife regularly comments that while she loved the “old” me, she feels far more loved now and really appreciates the changes I’ve made. But Samson really did have a negative reaction to learning more about women. Back in March of last year he wrote a post on it:
I don’t know what’s more gut-wrenching: watching women deny that they play cruel games… or seeing them acknowledge that, yes, we really are this cold-hearted and calculating. The latter is certainly more shocking.
…Sociosexual philosophy has disillusioned me beyond all reckoning. Peering deep into the psyche of woman has rendered me grievously scornful in feeling and mercilessly unscrupulous in behaviour towards these unholy, ungodly beings. I venture to say that… I hate them. Yes, I hate them! And how could I not?
…they are beasts, deserving nothing but callous treatment and damnation; and I can wish nothing upon them but furious hatred, ignominy and a miserable passing.
On January 11th Samson wrote what appears to be a breakup letter with the Manosphere:
After years of at least semi-regular reading (less regular in recent months), I am finally inclined to distance myself from the part of the web called the “manosphere”…
A related, second reluctant conclusion I’ve come to is that many, if not most, of the men on these sites are not really worthy of much respect, not worth emulating or feeling much sympathy for…
For instance, most of the manosphere denizens are perverts. Even at the supposedly “Christian” sites, most of the men are perverts. I mean this not as a pejorative, but in a literal, clinical sense: these men’s ideas about proper sexuality have been perverted; corrupted. On these sites, there is a good deal of posturing about wifely “submission”, but an awful lot of the time this is followed by complaints that a wife won’t “submit” – to her husband’s pleas for sodomy. This very blog entry was inspired by a sordid discussion that I saw at Dalrock’s (a site that I frankly have never been impressed with, viewing the author’s style as whiny and frequently bordering on misrepresentation), in which one commenter was upset and soliciting advice because he expected marriage to be an opportunity to engage in sickening sexual acts, and was disappointed when this didn’t materialize.
In his closing paragraphs he includes his own version of where have all the good men gone!, having somehow forgotten entirely that he is a Christian man who coincidentally has a blog. Won’t some big strong good man come to Samson’s rescue?
I would still like to see a Christian – a TRULY Christian – resurgence of teaching on the biblical definitions of manhood, womanhood, and submission, but after what I’ve been seeing in the manosphere, I wonder whether that’s possible. Theoretically, it should be – but in practice, it doesn’t seem to work out. For whatever reason, the men who are most interested in this topic seem to have their own pathologies.
When I found the post I left a couple of comments challenging Samson to stop being so evasive. If he feels the need to imply that I’m a pervert for believing in biblical marriage, he should be able to point out the offending text. In true chick mode he followed up with another post, including a refusal to do anything beyond making cowardly and passive aggressive accusations:
…in response to complaints that I have not identified whom or what I am talking about with exact precision: I decline to do this because I think such things ought not to be talked about and find discussion of them to be creepy. That is the end of it.
While Samson is clearly the worst in this regard, he isn’t the only blogger who is following the passive aggressive pattern in objecting to the Christian Manosphere. On January 22nd Simon Grey wrote:
There is a certain segment of the Manosophere that is both nominally Christian and participates in the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM). I generally make a point of avoiding these people since, as far as I can tell based on what I’ve read, they generally make a point of blaming women for everything that’s wrong with the world…
Anyhow, getting back to the point at hand, there are still plenty of men today who are, in a sense, trying to blame Eve for every major problem they have. The complaints are legion. Some men complain about getting fucked over in a divorce. Some men complain about not getting fucked over enough in the marriage bed. Some men complain that their wives are unattractive; some men complain that their wives are not attracted to them. Some men complain that their wives are lazy and refuse to help around the house. In general, a good number of these men avoid being introspective and asking themselves whether they have at all contributed to their own problems.
It isn’t clear who or what he is referring to here, but that is the point. All I can tell is he is referring to Christian married (or divorced) men in the manosphere. In a baffling denial of the modern feminist movement, Simon places the bulk of the blame for the rebellion of women on the common man:
A husband’s job, though, is to obey God and do what he says. In regards to marriage, the husband is expected to lead. He is expected to treat his wife with kindness. He is to love his wife and not be bitter towards her. He is to protect his wife. He is to provide for his wife.5 He is to sacrifice himself for his wife, if necessary. He is to make sure that his wife is sexually fulfilled.6 He is to do this because God requires this of him. He is not to do this because he expects his wife to return the favor…
This is not to say that women are completely without fault. However, it is clear that the greater fault lies with the men and their near-complete failure to comply with God’s commands. Therefore, men in unhappy marriages need to examine their lives for sin and failure, and do what they can to correct their course and live as the leaders that God would have them to be. Once they’ve done that, then we can talk about the women.
This idea that men have to be perfect before we can expect anything from women is more of the standard fare we get from feminised Christian leaders, and it has no basis in Scripture. The NT emphasis is on telling wives to submit to their husbands, not telling husbands to force or manipulate their wives into submission. This of course is recognized by those against submission and twisted to suggest that marriage vows are only promises to God, and aren’t something each spouse also promises to each other (as well as their future children and the larger community). This thread of specious logic of course instantly disappears if we are talking about a wayward husband, as no one would suggest that an unfaithful husband hasn’t betrayed his wife.
As Cane Caldo points out in his excellent post Advocates Under Authority, the OT similarly only offers enhanced moral protection for women who are under submission to a man. The idea that the mass of modern women in feminist rebellion are in submission to either a father or husband is truly laughable. Nevertheless, Simon has doubled down on this idea that God holds men primarily accountable for the rebellion of women in his second post in the series, I Will Not Punish Your Daughters When They Commit Harlotry.
Simon also discovered a scriptural defense of Man up and marry those sluts!
I note, not without some degree of amusement, that the example of Hosea would indicate, contra to the assertion of some MRMs and MGTOWs, that God does occasionally expect men man to man up and marry whores.
Given this logic I can only assume that we should look forward to a future post by Simon Grey explaining to pro lifers that “God does occasionally instruct parents to kill their children“.
If men like Simon Grey and Samson’s Jawbone have insight to share with other married Christian men, I call on them to share it and stop the passive aggressive sniping. There is a mass of human suffering out there and pompous claims of “I’m better than those other Christian husbands” won’t do anyone any good, men, women, or children.
I haven’t read or heard of Simon until now, so I’ll refrain from commenting on his stuff.
But Samson….
Well, Samson seems to be under the impression that simple knowledge will make one happier. Or he wishes it did.
Newsflash people:
A bitter blue pill man that takes the red pill will be a bitter red pill man. Usually a bitter AND angry red pill man. The only difference is that the knowledge gives him the power and opportunity to see the truth and make a decision to change. Sometimes it takes a heck of a long time to decide to make that change as you go through the grieving process of all your lost resources you dumped into the old beliefs.
Samson doesn’t seem like he ever stopped grieving for the old him. He’s still stuck on himself and seems to think that he deserves better treatment from women, and seems to forget that God made women the way they are. He simply doesn’t seem to accept that on an emotional level even if he acts upon it on a rational level. So he goes through life acting on the facts, but never seeing the beauty of how women function when they follow the path God gave them.
Then he blames the manosphere for his unhappiness instead of just owning it. We’re degenerates. We’re cynical. We’re angry. Blah. Blah. Blah. We’re individual men in various states of grieving, acceptance, learning, growing, and teaching. You’ll get from the manosphere what you go looking for as well as what you put in. Samson has found what he’s wanted.
Some people really are like Cypher, and would prefer to unlearn unpleasant things they’ve learned, and thus turn on those who opened their eyes, and former friends. Some even resort to lying and twisting others’ words to try to make them mean something unintended, in an attempt to ‘win’ in debate with them. And some would castigate the entire manosphere for the ostensible shortcomings of a few bloggers and associated commentariat, rather than recognizing the breadth and diversity of opinion on display in the huge number of manosphere bloggers and commenters; no-one said everyone has to agree with everyone on everything, but apparently everyone gets tarred with the same brush, regardless.
Sad, and pathetic, and stupid.
As one who can sympathise with the former blue pill way of thinking. I too get angry at the realisation of what red pill wisdom means. I own that I’m angry about it. I don’t really hide it that well. However, as with anything in life, I hope that I can learn enough to make the changes necessary in my life and come out the other side as a better man.
I suspect that those men who claim that, the manosphere’s knowledge has made them bitter and disillusioned, are the same men who had few relationships with women to begin with.
My relationship with my girlfriend has improved dramatically since learning about the truth about men and women, and after I “unlearned” the toxic female-pedestraling zeitgeist of our culture. I also get hit on a lot more than before, for some weird reason.
However, for those men who are socially challenged, I suspect that the knowledge might make them even more unable to talk to women than before. I don’t know?
After reading Simon’s post in full, it seems like a ridiculous article and argument.
So, as men who act like men, we’re in a minority. Because we’re in a minority within a country that worships women and demonizes men, we’re supposed to be ok with what that culture does to women we’ve never met before? Ones from outside our community, under the influence of others, and we’re supposed to take them in, no harm no foul?
No thanks. If anything, those following the proper way should be trying to exert more influence, rather than less by meekly accepting lesser quality and rolling over. As a minority of the population, the only way to have a voice is to stand up for ourselves and our beliefs.
I was a bit taken by surprise. What I was expecting was commentary about the recent backlash against “traditionalists” and the latest A Voice For Men Radio episode that has been weighing on my mind. My respect for John the Other has been eroding quickly as, more often than not, he is quick to display hostility towards any pro-male system that doesn’t completely mirror his.
In an especially inane comment, he declared that mothers’ spankings were what caused wars as they apparently institutionalized young boys to believe “violence is the only answer.” He also posited with complete certainty and without a shred of proof that the Sandy Hook shooter’s mother abused him. Quite frankly, if these are the “leaders” of the MRM it’s going to look a lot like Feminism in a year or two.
As for the above fruit loop, I can only imagine how many guys given the option of “either you agree completely with JtO and the other AVFM leaders or you’re a feminist/mangina/white knight” and saying, “Ok, a white knight am I.” The divisive no-middleground approach I’ve been hearing from AVFM can mean nothing good.
I used to have no hope at all for the idea of marriage until I started talking with some of the “geezers” I worked alongside. They had a different story about how Biblical marriage was a blessing and they have never regretted it. They were of course all still happily married. What the MRA lacks is a message of hope. That’s why it attracts so many bitter-clingers who don’t really have a way forward and are stuck in the perpetual grief cycle.
Biblical traditionalism, although “barbaric” to some MRAs in high places, actually does create joy when both parties practice.
Nevertheless, Simon has doubled down on this idea that God holds men primarily accountable for the rebellion of women …
And while men are held accountable for the behavior of women, they are not given the means to determine the behavior of women. It is something I think Christian men have accepted as a norm.
There’s lots that will look at the truth and wish they could unlearn it. Like Cypher in the Matrix. Or look at the truth and fail to “man-up” to it and correctly and adequately answer the “so, what are you going to do about it?” question that always comes up when the truth is discovered to be something totally different, which is the main fault I find in the so-called “traditionalists” who seem to nominally acknowledge the truth.
Especially with the “Christian” side of things, there is a lot of tradition that they have to work against and it can even be seen in the posts of those that seem to “get it” in part but still seem to want to hold onto what their old tradition has to say about women, putting them above reproach, and therefore unaccountable or partially accountable for their sins. Or about Biblical marriage, thinking that some vestige of it still exists in their own lives or the lives of those around them, not wanting to own up to the truth that all marriage has been given over to the State long ago.
The backlash is only coming because they hold to their own tradition and not to Scripture.
Yep, to all of what The Karamazov Idea has to say. Probably one of the biggest issues I have had in the manosphere is how predictable it can be at times. And no, John The Other, I have the ability to formulate my own opinion and MO.
All that said, the CM is an important place. Even back in the 90s, I was very alone in my churchian experience, observing this condescension toward men that seems so obviously observable now. For me to have brought it up was just horrrendous. “We are seeking to build men up! It’s okay to cry!”. Now I know I wasn’t so nuts after all.
And further, it helps to see for other people’s sake. I have a cousin going through some stuff right now that was textbook out of something I read at heartiste, which was textbook to something I went through. Sometimes, after reading a lot of the same stuff over and over, you forget that there is a way forward there too.
Leap of a Beta hit it on the head regarding bitter blue pill men becoming bitter red pill men. Bitterness is the sin there and it is easy to get mired in it.
This really surprised me at the time, because understanding women better has only increased my empathy for them.
I think it would be great if you could delve into this a bit more at some point. Seems that your reaction is not the typical reaction.
Morticia
You must be new here. Dalrocks comment is quite the norm in RedPill land. By all means, spend some time readying Roissy and you will pick up on that.
Seeing women “as they are” is to see them as fully human and therefore deserving a great deal of sympathy. Because their very human waywardness and contradictoriness has them as the primary victim. Women will end up in a very unhappy place if they follow nothing but their feral inclinations and must do some hard work to avoid that outcome; maybe more so than men..
Morticia is by no means new; she is well-known to much of us by various aliases: Morticia, Gabriella, and Paige, at least, if not others.
I’d advise against engaging with her, as she is steadfastly obtuse / a troll, however one wants to regard her.
@Morticia
I echo that sentiment; understanding how and why all women are crazy has only made me love them (particularly my wife and daughters) more. Makes them easier to love. Instead of being afraid of or offended by their emotional volatility, I help them manage it and all of us enjoy it so our lives are better. Understanding female pschyology helps especially well with taking conflict as opportunity to improve the relationship instead of taking it as a threat. Learning how and why my wife likes to be teased, that it makes her happier for me to not take her too seriously went a long way towards saving our marriage. That plus manning up by embracing a code of brutal honesty and integrity towards myself first and others second.
@Dalrock
I think this post identifies an important, and sometimes frustrating difference between the holy and unholy sides of the manosphere. The holy side has to be “right” and “good.” Using “good” in the philoshical sense that if an idea leads to a better life then it is good. The unholy M/S need only be good, not right. Thus our arguments are, and will be, more energetic at best and more polemic at worst.
At best, because we can call each other to more deeply understand scriptural truths in our search for a “gooder” life. At worst, because our arguments can easily, and pitifuly, devolve into finger pointing about who is more satanic or evil or morally suspect.
The unholy M/S argues all the time. But the discussions over theory are more closely tied to what “just works.”
Sticking to what works and is right is much harder. And divisive, apparently. And unfortunately.
At the point Simpson was dropping his jawbone and quitting the manosphere, there were several discussions at the nominally christian manopsphere sites about how important blow jobs were to men.
And the implication I took from it was that he saw this as perversion.
However, I think what you are really reading are the symptoms of something more: Despair.
Despair is normal and the anger is just a cover for it. That is what he’s describing. Despair.
Whether he can work through it or not, is another question. Some people can’t get past denying reality.
As for Simon,
There have been times men have fallen away from the path of righteousness and the women become exactly the way they currently are in our culture. Personally, you watch enough history and your realize this is a repeating theme of the destruction of religions and cultures. Whether you want to call it the fallen nature of women or not, the farther away your civilization gets away from a patriarchal system, the more the destructive behaviors of women become more prevasive.
When you think of Rome, you think of the decadence, the excess sexuality, the decay, the corruption. We do not remember that the roman women originally did not wear make up, did not wear jewelry, did not dress provactively. The households were strongly patriarchal.
0000000`
And it cut of part of what I was going to say.
You cannot lead, without being responsible for the outcome.
Personally, I don’t see it as a failure of the current men, but a failure of the men that have led before us.
Most newbies to game & the manosphere, dont understand its about re-associating social cues so they become more masculine
This is a common one for guys new to game or the Manosphere
You have to become accustomed to the new behaviours & the increased levels of confidence & aggression needed to handle game & your new forms of behaviour
Men, thanks to the cultural fascist marxist indoctrination, their emasculated & guilt become easily breakable habits of leisure
Most men break out of their old selves
Some, the odd few, ie Samson cant stand the truth & revert to their feminised context
While others accept it passive aggressively, ie the Social pathologian & his dont talk about hypergamy backpedalling
For new guys, they really need to understand
Habits are basically social forms of context
That is the context created by the social cues regarding their perception of social discourse, doesnt function correctly
That is the social cues, normally associated with masculine behaviour become associated with emasculated behaviour
These social cues can create a masculine context & mostly leads to masculine behaviour, or any form of behaviour, depending on what they associate the social cues, received from the people around them
Game is all about breaking free from old forms of behaviour
Social intelligence re-associates the social cue’s & recreates the societal contextual neccessary for masculine, testosterone based associative behaviour
It’s a behavioral process
Most men make it through successfully, the relatively few who dont understand whats needed, ie willpower & confidence, dont …
“Personally, I don’t see it as a failure of the current men, but a failure of the men that have led before us.”
Too bad its the current men that have to pick up the pieces…
RG3- Thanks for answering.
Not to be stick in the mud but… when a man’s marriage, children, work and property are stripped from him by the State who successfully uses women’s natural narcissistic natures to do – what’s to be hopeful about? – Women are the way they are and the State has converted her envious, prideful and self loving nature into very lucrative profits and a ever increasing sphere of power and control.
And it’s just getting started… There’s a lot more to dismantle, steal and destroy before this process of corruption, power and greed is over in Amerika.
Hope? Maybe a system of beliefs will impart some form of hope, a religion maybe, or a philosophy, some might call a delusion or maybe a simple addiction… these can give hope – for a while – but the tangible reality is the political – ‘The State’ owns the women. The State has won women’s ‘hearts and minds’ and has their enthusiastic cooperation as useful idiots in the enslavement of Amerika and eventually, of themselves.
I guess those men who find hope in a system of belief, a Christian mono-theistic religion, need to ‘pray harder’, cuz so far, the Bible God doesn’t seem to be responding to you favorably. God’s will be done…?
I believe male/female relations will self correct one way or another but I’m not hopeful for a reasonable or peaceful or miraculous return to balance and equity anytime soon. Maybe male/female relations will come under serious reconciliation after the feminist / man hating / ‘oppressed’ / ‘abused’ / vengeful / empowered / entitled / fully armed and trained to kill Feminazi Soldiers are rolled out into civilian populations to ‘put down’ domestic insurrection – shooting men would be like hunting zombies – to protect the women and children – yeah – crazy as that might seem it is exactly what has happened throughout history when cultures and nations are dismantled and sold – a lot like what is happening to us now.
This is so true. Once you start noticing the tendency of Christian leaders to blame everything women do on men, it’s a little startling how pervasive it is. It’s pretty much standard for both the most liberal and the most “conservative” wings of the faith, too.
lzozozlzlzozoz
keep up da good werkz dalrockasz
ye write with logic wit reason and morality
and perhaps there is no better salute
to jesus
who spoke
with exalted logic reason wit and morality
no lzozzlzlzoing!
zlzoozozozozozlo
da h8rs gonna h8! lzozozzlzo
@Karamoz
Excellent post
The manosphere isnt about hope, yes there is hope, in that dalrock, avfm, thespearhead, we all actively act for change
The manosphere is all about destroying the illusion of an Orwellian society, designed so men dont excercise their political power & self sufficient in freedom without a government
The manosphere, along with game & pua, does this by using whats called negative conditioning
It isnt anywhere near deliberate but it is there
The despair, bitterness etc., you’re referring to isnt bitterness, but men talking freely no holds barred
For men upto their necks in feminism & accustomed to taking shit from women, this is anything but bitterness
Men being men, is usually viewed by women as being bitter, as women are projecting idiots for the most part … women usually project their bitterness at men for discovering how women really work, by calling men bitter
Its called shaming language …
Anger & hatred & venting, are all positive forms of negative conditioning, as it re-associates the context created by our social cues of reality, allowing us to see more clearly
I like to call the manosphere re-associative masculine conditioning, as it re-associates the perceptual cues of our reality, allowing us to tap into dominance, confidence & combativeness necessary to fight a feminist state
Samsons problem stems in large part that he judges women on the basis of a masculine moral standard not a moral standard that is fitting for a woman.
Something a friend of mine from Thailand told me illustrates this. She complained that Thai women, behaved so much worse after emigrating to the country where we live now than they did in Thailand. She told me how sweet and nice and good so many of them had been there and how they did things here that they never would have done in Thailand. The change in behavior was bigger for Thai women than for Thai men.
The reason for this change of behavior is that when a Thai woman moves she looses the constant presence of a male power that curbs her potential for immoral behavior and brings out her best behavior. This male power is a combination of husbands, fathers, brothers, men in general and almost most importantly the monks and the way the monks uphold the RULES of Buddhist morality as Thai people see them and the way men in general assert them. Because of this male certainty regarding rule based morality women in Thailand feel a certainty about the moral direction that stems from men and they submit to it. When they do they become more feminine and loving.
When a woman is without male influence and support, directly through people or indirectly through very solid moral and social norms, she must rest more on her own male side in order to provide solidity and direction to her life. Drawing on her male side ilk this makes her less feminine, less loving, less happy, resentful, bitchy etc. It also can never be as strong as the direction and support she could have gotten from strong men in her life and strong male originated norms in society. This makes her less moral and more inclined to act badly in all sorts of ways.
It is a trap to view the contrast between a woman with and without male influence as an in genuine expression of morality or goodness. It is tempting to think that if she behaves good only when men make her behave good than she isn`t actually being good, she isn`t actually moral. It is tempting to think that because you are unchanging and solid in your moral direction her conditional behavior means she is not good. This is wrong because the feelings, the loving felinity she acts from when under male guidance are genuine feelings and genuine love and empathy. It is just that she needs the male support FROM OUTSIDE to feel this way. When the male support from outside is sufficient she can lay her male side to rest and then her feminine nature blossoms at its best and she BECOMES the loving, nurturing doting and sacrificing woman that you used to believe was the admirable goodness of womanhood. It IS real when she feels and acts that way but it also is CONDITIONAL. I believe a lot, maybe most of the anger and bitterness of men in the sphere towards women stems precisely from this feeling of women’s goodness not being real and moral because it is not unchanging but dependent. Men like to see wether things are sold and unchanging to asses what its real nature is. If it is not in fact always the same thing, men don`t respect it and don`t see it as real. Applying such a standard towards women is never correct and only leads men to feel betrayed and disappointed in women. Women are more indirect in the way towards being good but no less real or worthy.
What the manosphere is doi
Although men have a more unchanging, rock solid sense of ethics and character than women it is actually a fallacy to see it as unwavering to the degree many tend to think. Without female influence, and especially without GOOD female influence, men degenerate too. Men need the presence of women in their lives that INSPIRE them towards purpose. If men do n to have women to care about they tend to sink into more nihilistic and hedonic and purposeless lifestyles. Women are also necessary to soften men and draw out mens empathy. They do so by being very feminine, loving and more EMPHATIC then men. The constant pointing out of how bad this or that makes someone feel or just the value of peoples feelings is a constant hidden training of men that is vital for their development of empathy. The estrogen in women soften the the principled and unforgiving rawness of testosterone based approaches to life. So while you are morally guiding her, she is secretly, without even understanding so herself, TRAINING YOU and giving you your reasons for purpose.
In this back and forth dance between feminine and masculine both genders can mutually reinforce good or bad but both are DEPENDENT on each other for a healthy development that leads to actually living good moral lives and have the feelings that actually lead to being good. You just have to see the structure of the dynamic in order to find peace with it and appreciate it.
Let me explain why shit tests are a good thing and even leads to men not only realizing the highest potential for they alpha/the power or strength aspects of their personality but also their highest moral potential.
When a woman tests a man he will often start to fail the tests because he wants comfort. He wants things to be easy so he tries to please her by supplicating. This is a betrayal of who he is as a man and the direction and purpose and leadership that somewhere in him wants to come out. When he fails the test he gets a seemingly incomprehensible negative reaction. This dynamic will keep up forever until the man stops supplicating and finds his own center and direction. Once that is in place he will pass the test because he no longer betrays himself. It is the difference between giving in and hoping to be let off the hook easy, which is in effect seeking motherly forgiving energy and to stay in a masculine energy and increase it because masculine energy increases when challenges are successfully met. It is in a sense growing up and being a man, to not try to make mommy be nice to you.
If you look around the sphere you will find that many men there love where they are in their lives AS MEN. They have found their masculine core and their direction and they never want to betray it again. They don´t want to be let of the hook but enjoy dynamic with women because they can stand strongly in their masculinity and just be amused by the test. They have overcome their fear of feminine punishments and they enjoy it. Most guys are not there yet, just working towards it, but it is a common place to end up in once you develop your game enough and do enough masculinity work. And why have the guys ended up there? Because women punished them for passing tests relentlessly until he men found their own strength and cut the cord to mommy energy.
Learning to pass tests as a skill helps you but it only gives a partial reward. Womens prime power is their sensitivity and receptiveness and on SOME LEVEL they will always feel malcontent when their man, and men for the most part, are not where he/they should be. And they will respond to that. Learning to decently pass tests and find your masculine center halfway helps. But it will never get the same reaction as when you are truly where you should be as a man and AUTHENTICALLY passing the test without even noticing it was their because you have fulfilled your masculine potential and realized as much of its power as you can. Women never let you rest. When learn to handle one level with a woman and she feels secure with you at that level, she will allow herself to start feeling more finely tuned and she will find new weaknesses and prod at them with tests and emotionality. She then elevates the game to a new level and you must move along and grow more in order to handle it. Mens weakness is their complacency and their desire to rest and stagnate if they see no reason for growth. Indirectly the reason for growth is women/pussy. So when you try to rest at a higher level women will start to push you even more. They are like unforgiving gurus or drill sergeants never giving you a rest until you have become the man you need to be. Who was leading who again?
The first level women test you at is power and amoral masculinity. This is because she needs to survive. There is not much point to morality if the moral person dies and no one with a morality at that level will survive. Women are survival artists and use extreme adaptability skills to bend themselves to adapt to whatever life throws at them. Men are more like experiments that nature throws out to see if they make it or not in this or that version. So, once she has found a man that has enough survival power, enough alpha, guys tend to think she will be happy but she won`t. Being Christian you should know that the feelings of being a moral person and doing good things offer higher potential good feelings than being selfish. Women want those feelings too. When they are safe enough to have them. So when a man is alpha enough for her she will move her testing over to the moral level. And in the same way she through that, over time, made a man realize his alpha, she will be able to make a man find his own masculine moral center which he can lead her with. It only matters when there is enough alpha underneath. It also has to be a MALE morality. It has to have solidity, strictness and consistency etc. Once that is in place and you and men in general can hold the masculine standard strongly enough for her she will respond like receptive felinity always does and bring out the loving empathic feelings that is the feminine counterpart to the level of your masculine morality.
It might be tempting to draw the conclusion from all this that everything is always the mens fault for not leading their women properly and all that crap. This is wrong. Just as felinity is neutral and just is so is masculinity and as you can not blame femininity for reacting the way it does you can not blame masculinity for the reacting the way it does. If the masculine is sleeping for some time that is what it is supposed to do at that time in the back and forth dance of feminine indirect growing of men and male direct leadership of women. You could just as well blame women for not having properly indirectly grown the men yet. It just isn`t the time. No stage in the dance of life is more right or wrong than the other. Lower stages must be gone through to get to the higher.
But men need to wake up as soon as they can and lead and they are doing so NOW. HERE. What the sphere is doing is not just turning individual men into the men that can lead individual women but finding the moral direction of society and then providing a strong enough masculine guidance on a societal level for women to have the masculine support in general they need to bring out the best of their feminine. Guiding women is a process on many levels and what one man can do with a woman is only half the job. The rest of the job is guiding women through the norms women pick up from EVERYONE. By upholding a standard for good behavior for a woman the manosphere is providing the masculine support that allows a woman to lay her “insufficient” masculine side to rest and bring forth her feminine loving goodness without the presence of ONE man to guide her at this moment. This is exactly what Thai men and Thai monks have done so well. That women are disorganized bouncing balls of unthinking femininity in many ways but they have huge respect for the strictures of masculine morality when the monks or men lay down the law. I´ve seen the same submissive contentedness in Thai women when they come back from the temple and the monks have given them some strong messages about what to do and they follow up on it with a discipline that seems almost masculine while still remaining extremely feminine and that is because they are acting not from themselves but the masculine directions the monks gave.
Have a look at a couple of videos by the Thai artist Palmy. She is the perfect example of what a woman that has enough masculine support on all levels expresses and behaves. She oozes and radiates loving feminine energy. If Samson could be the kind of man she deserves there is no way he would complain about women.
I challenge you to find me ONE artist in the west that expresses feminine contentedness and the resulting overflow of love filled feminine energy as Palmy does. This is not a CRITIQUE of western women by saying thai women good western women bad. It is a critique of western society by pointing out that we are not abel to produce that level of womanhood. Men have to step up in order to become the individual men and give the societal signals that allows women the possibility to become like Palmy. Which in fact IS what we are doing right here right now. Crushing churcianity is a vital part of this for example. Sending women home from church with the current messages makes them move away from what can be seen in the Palmy videos. Dalrock is THE man that does the best job at changing the church so that its preasts can as good of a job as the Thai monks at guiding women into leaving church closer to Palmy than Amanda Marcot. The signals women are getting in the sphere are the beginning of rebuilding the entire guiding system that produces Palmys.
It is important that women can`t just say it is all your fault for not guiding me. Make me, make me, make me or it is all your fault. The reason is part of the way men guide women is by challenging the women and holding them RESPONSIBLE and ACCOUNTABLE for their actions. So when you get messages about what a woman should do and you understand that you are responsible for doing something about it. The strict messages from the sphere are accountability and responsibility messages and the monks in Thailand do the same. That is leadership.
Palmy:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=palmy+Rhythm+of+the+Times+concert&oq=palmy&gs_l=youtube.1.1.35i39l2j0l8.838.1533.0.2705.5.5.0.0.0.0.121.579.0j5.5.0…0.0…1ac.1.3K0Y_KoZYNI
This guy seems pretty easy to understand if you just think of him as Cypher from The Matrix. He’s seen the world for what it really is, but he enjoys the delusion more and desires to completely forget that he ever saw the truf. At least, that is, if you are a fan of Platonic philosophy or whatever.
i came across another one of these Poor Damsel Deniers just today —
http://www.thetrumpet.com/article/10305.20.152.0/society/the-incredible-shrinking-man
his bottom line:
“The frustrations that so many people have over the weakness of men today all trace back to this powerful spiritual truth: Men are weak because of their sin.”
the joyful annihilation of the western male that has already eviscerated our nations has nothing to do with the intentional degradation, disenfranchisement, criminalization, and iniquity heaped on boys and men the past hundred years
no, it’s all “traceable” back to the “powerful spiritual truth” that men are being stomped by the State, Chuches, and everybody else because MALES DESERVE IT as consequence of “their sin” (of being born male, presumably)
this henpecked boy, Hilliker, wouldnt be the “managing editor” of anything w/o joining in with the sisterhood/enablers’ beatdown blamefest of the very people they have subjugated and persecuted
the Churches, like the State’s offices and instruments, are full of HIllikers, because departure from the sisterhood script means you aint gonna be the Managing Editor of ANYTHING in the Fempire’s nations
the vast majority of western “men” have learned exactly what they damn well better say if they want to thrive n survive in the gulag . . . guys like Hiliker have lied to themselves so many times, with constant support-harmonies from the Choir, that they probly believe their own nonsense by now
Sad. But this just reads like what was being said right befor the mens right movement started. I doubt Samson will have any problems finding people who agree w/ his version of “righteousness”. His lack of Biblical support for his beliefs are telling.
Furthermore , Ras Al Ghul is exactly right: if Im mad at anyone it’s the previous leaders who led so many astray (both men and women). And myself for not having the courage to stick with what the Bible says overtly, not some twisted interpretation.
And Samson ought to be aware, my prayers echo those of Paul in re: to alexander. I no longer support, nor do I even tolerate, feminist nonsense from Christian leaders.
‘It isn’t clear who or what he is referring to here, but that is the point.’
THE most pathetic debating tactic ever known to man. Just launch attacks but not actually define what it is you’re taking about, because then people could shoot holes all through it. Shows a severe lack of intellectual capacity.
@mackpua
I don’t think we disagree. Whenever a friend finds himself with the feminist broadsword at his throat, the first thing we discuss is what a dark place the world is today in the West. We talk about how the laws selectively target men and serve women. We talk about how what women say they want is never actually anything close to what they actually want. We talk about the invisible thing called culture.
The sad thing is that there aren’t many marriageable women on the market today. The whores can’t stand the sight of a good woman in their midst so they make it priority #1 to poison the well in hopes that men will become thirsty enough to show up at their doors for some relief. Thankfully, from the perspective of a young guy, men aren’t biting.
This is where we find a lot of the prominent voices of the MRA. They’re documenting the decline and focusing on “education,” which is useful, certainly. However they don’t have a game plan. Proposing legislation that will never be passed is not a game plan. We’re not women: we can’t rely on hypergamy to push our views. We can’t change laws without changing culture.
There’s a difference between having a beer with a distraught friend who got thrown out of a long-term relationship with the woman he thought was the love of his life and setting him straight and the slow and maddening descent into lamenting all that currently is and doing it all the time.
Dalrock is one of the first people in the manosphere I encountered with a joyful disposition. He’s not always happy, especially with how the world is going, however it seems that the Biblical frame-point has endowed him with sincere joy in his marriage and family. I think the potential for healing is important. This is the push. This is where we set goals and do things instead of letting the bitterness eat away at our resolve. The nihilism isn’t helpful. The re-emergence of hope in the form of the Game and MRA community will come from playing and winning. The odds are still stacked against good, common men, however with an in-depth grasp of the rules, our situation is far from hopeless.
Ray – that article is a hot holy mess. I could spend hours ripping on it. He has just enough truth in there to make the rest appear like a logically derived explanation (and to him, it probably is). He claims men no longer have “the Hunger.” Men still have the hunger, but they have nowhere else to go but the place that’s feeding them bread and water every day. That’s why they are metaphorically starving and wasting away.
Karamazov – Dalrock is one of the first people in the manosphere I encountered with a joyful disposition.
Same here. My gateway corridor was Heartiste, and as much as I dived in to his writings to learn how things really worked, there was a pervasive sense of “Why bother doing anything but chase poon? Everything sucks, get your fun while you can before we all die.” Dalrock was the first person I found who brought any sense that things could be better.
A husband’s job, though, is to obey God and do what he says. In regards to marriage, the husband is expected to lead. He is expected to treat his wife with kindness…. [skip a bit, brother]….. This is not to say that women are completely without fault. However, it is clear that the greater fault lies with the men
This is the central lie of our times, the core error which generates a multitude of other errors.
For those who haven’t been paying the slightest shred of attention: The prime audience for the Christian manosphere is, Christian men who DID ALL THOSE THINGS RIGHT….and got punished for it. While the badboys got the best of everything.
@anon
Last paragraph: PREACH!
Freud has wondered always many times “What do womenz want?”
Well, da GBFM has figured it out.
their inherent nature is to want alpha f**s and beta bucks
Christinainty overcomes women’z nature by placing se inthe context in marriage and only marraige.
And for giving her youngest best sexual years to one man, he in return supports her throughout all life.
This was the christsian story of marriage.
the beankerz beanekers bernnakifierz used fmeinissm dfeminism to destroy the fmaily and christianity.
by santificyiying a owmnez gina and butt tingelozlzizizzizlzlz, and teahcing them to pursue them over god and family, they wonz.
the bankerz cretaed feminissm teling women “hey we will give you lotasa alpha f***cks if you in return help us collect beta bucks via alimony, child support, sexual ahharasseent and so on.”
women oft seem contradictory because they gain tehir place in civilization from teh sexual loyalty to one man, as the fmaily is teh beedrock iof cicvilziizznatios. but this goes ageainst their inherhent butt and gina tinageleozlozlzoz whcih wants alpha “fu**S and beta bucks”
the welfare state if basicaly da cenrtal bankers profiting off a sysetm that insistitutionalizes the “alpha f***Cs and beta bucks paradigm,” where they dumb-down alpha and define it as a thug of ahole that makes aowmenz butt and gina tingle, as oppsioed to mozart or beethoven or homre or jesus or moses or exalted physica which leaves da womenz high and dry.
the ancients ntoed this fallen female procivility–dat she would be the firts to know of da lotststas of cockas seprhent sperhent snake, and that she owuld teac the fallen knoweldged to adam.
to overcome this, genensisi states that a woman is to serve her husband from henceforth, above butt and gina tinegeleozozlzo which the bankers todya teahc her to serve so as to profitz
dis has been a GBFM sermonz
zlozozozololzolzozoz
You (Dalrock) made reference to having been given pause by something Simon had written, i think you said that over at Cane’s. I went to Simon’s place, read his posts, and never could get a hold on what it was that impressed you to the extent you were, I believe you said, rethinking some things. Correct me if wrong.
As above, this sums up what they offer….a small head fake before heading for Monte
“This is not to say that women are completely without fault. However, it is clear that the greater fault lies with the men”
I read part of Samon’s blog. He uses a comment from that girl Zippy Catholic as good clear thinking.
Told me all I needed to know of him.
I guess those men who find hope in a system of belief, a Christian mono-theistic religion, need to ‘pray harder’, cuz so far, the Bible God doesn’t seem to be responding to you favorably. God’s will be done…?
Yes, absolutely, God’s will is being done, perfectly. I’ve no intent to go theological more than to say that the nonsense we are on about is easier to see COMPLETELY, from a Biblical perspective than it is from its lack. That means we have something to juxtapose present times with, and it means when we read about what is going to happen, its happening.
Damn dezent zermon GBFM
@empathologism
Your response at Caldo’s makes more sense to me now. I was referring to Simon’s posts as examples of taking the easy route of blaming the ordinary man. It did get me thinking more on the topic, but it didn’t impress me.
@ Empath
“Yes, absolutely, God’s will is being done, perfectly. I’ve no intent to go theological more than to say that the nonsense we are on about is easier to see COMPLETELY, from a Biblical perspective than it is from its lack. That means we have something to juxtapose present times with, and it means when we read about what is going to happen, its happening.”
Even more than that, it tells us what is going to happen in the future as well. Spoiler alert for those who haven’t read ahead:
BAD THINGS!
Gotcha
donal, the bad things are the things we see when we put on the “They Live” glasses. We fight them cause we ran out of gum. The bad things are the fodder of the sphere (knowing worse is nigh to be sure)
Perhaps my sarcasm got in the way of my argument. I agree that we are facing bad things right now. What I was trying to indicate was that however bad things are now, they are going to get much, much worse in the future unless there is a rapid, and likely improbable, turnaround in our society. Honestly, at times the word collapse just doesn’t seem strong enough. We are heading towards Fall of Rome territory here.
There is no macro turnaround, there is no “global revival” unless you call the final massive gathering of the saints same.
I’m born a Mormon and am completely secular, and don’t believe in any god or gods (though I’m still a Mormon socially) and I’ve never been mistreated here, nor do I sense any animosity toward any faith or faiths, or lack of faith.
Aside from being a fan of the Dalrock blog, I am a fan of Simon Grey and other secular manosphere sites. The atheistmanosphere can criticize the Christians all day long, but it’s not like atheists are doing any better at keeping the feminine imperative in check. Google “atheismplus” for more on what looneys like Rebecca Watson and Greg Laden are doing to the skeptical movement.
Men have an interest in masculinity which transcends petty bickering about religion and politics. If being a Christian makes you a better man today than you were yesterday, I say do it. Fighting among ourselves and wasting time is silly.
I had trouble posting at alphagameplan, my post would show then be gone in moments.
Perhaps it’s a technical glitch,but if it’s not the quote:
“Notice that whereas the ALPHA points (links and identifies) and laughs (is genuinely amused), the gamma avoids (refuses to link, refuses to even name), and alternates between feigned laughter, feigned indifference, and genuine anger. Confrontation and contempt are alpha. Evasion and sniping from safety are gamma.”
Is ironic as rebuttals where not posted.
I thought my one (first)post was humorous,in regards to his writing “Sniveling gammas”
I wrote “Sniveling gammas Vs Sneering alphas.”
It’s odd, I enjoy,respect,admire,and agre with all of Vox’s stuff on the blog named “Vox Day’ but often find disagreeable materiel on alphagameplan,mostly from the commentators.
Actually my first comment was,roughly:
” I think I know where the tone of this article came from,and that is the lack of gammas no longer supporting the sluts the alphas are banging is increasing the cost of the soft harem and reducing the numbers therein by attrition.
If you’re the on banging her,you can pay for her car payments,mortgage,and restaurant bills.”
I do think that omega and gamma withdrawl from the SMP is costing players and alphas more,often much more than they are willing to pay out,effectively hamstringing their strategy.
They should not take objection,it’s not like the old days where a married man could kill his wife’s lover and get off in court.
Hearing tales of married men coming home to find wifey in bed with thugster and having to run away or the coppers will slam his ass is terrible to read.
The least we can do is boycott the market and make the alphas pay for the bounty (booty) they PIRATE.
Pirates are only cool in the movies,in real life measures are taken to stop theft.
Especially theft by fraud,which is a crime against human trust, a needed component of a stable society.
Thanks for allowing my posts Dalrock,your lack of censorship is laudable.
52 months celibate and loving it.
It’s not that I wouldn’t fight,it’s that I just don’t care.
If you steal dog poop off my porch I just laugh at your ignorance.
“This really surprised me at the time, because understanding women better has only increased my empathy for them.”
Dalrock is right on this for a while i hated women and was angry at the waste and the lie I followed in marriage and commitment in building a family. I started seeking the truth after 3 kids because I was working my ass off and giving and giving and I was hated for it. As I got the red pill truth I hated women for a brief while and then I realised that female behavior is normal. I stopped expecting from women what wasn’t there to be expected. One night I commented on the spearhead that women do not have the capacity to love. My whole body flushed over when I posted it and my whole life felt like I was used as a prop in someone elses lie. Now I have with the understanding of women no anger towards women and do have a sense of empathy based on reality and not blue pill romance of the white knight.
I truely love being a man and feel blessed by god to have the ability to see the truth and be able to stay married and father my children knowing the truth. Having the strength of character to face the horrible reality of being a man in todays world is a gift ( many men have killed and committed suicide when faced with red pill truth through emotional trama, Thomas Ball is one) I really feel bad for this Samson guy yearning for the blissful ignorance of the blue pill. It is a strange thing to me for a man to reject man hood like especially for a man that has chosen to be a leader by having a blog. I guess this is what happens when a man becomes churchian and worships man. Foundation is based on man and not on God. Man lies, God doesn’t faith in god is always reliable and soothing emotionally and spiritually. And this guy as such faith in man (popularity) that he openly describes his pain in knowing the truth and wishes his faith in man could be restored with ignorance.(wow)
Dalrock you are doing some good stuff here. And you are right red pill allows a man to see women as the children that they are. Sounds bad on the surface but as a father of 3 myself I cannot have bitterness or hate towards my little ones. At the same time I don’t worship my children or any child as society does women today.
yes, da truth sets ye free
and da red pill truth dalrock preaches
with elqouence witz and sublimity
sets many many menz free
freedom is the greatestz gift pozziblez
and speaking of freedomz
cuckholding a man is a way of enslaving him
or even just collecting taxes from him to pay for thug spawnz
is a way fo enslaving him
slavery was abolishsed mnay yearz agoz
but freedom reqauirez eternal dalrockian vigilancez lzozozollzoz
l;zozozoz
Everything sucks, get your fun while you can before we all die.” Dalrock was the first person I found who brought any sense that things could be better.
this is why I tease Dalrock about being a cultural leader. And that is what leadership does. It teaches a soluton and inspires the students. true leadership makes the lead stronger than they where when you got them. Very powerful stuff.
Sherlock,
Thank you for that very insightful post.
I knew that women behaved differently when under the absolute authority of men, but it never occurred to me that they could actually be different, in such an environment.
You have presented an elegant model of an iterative and symbiotic relationship, which is enabled only when men take the first step.
“So while you are morally guiding her, she is secretly, without even understanding so herself …”
I think that positive feminine input (which I have rarely seen) does not train, but rather acts as a catalyst that releases energy and capabilities that are already present in a man, and that this can occur repeatedly at ever higher levels.
For this reason, men seek, accept and internalize female input, often to their detriment, not realizing that the source must first be modified.
But, as you have explained, once men understand the true nature of women, it becomes obvious what women are (both good and bad), and what they cannot change about themselves, unless they are given the necessary external structure. At that point, men can become the external force that acts as a positive catalyst for women, or not.
I understand that taking this type of action is not always possible in the current legal environment, but this is a separate issue.
>…I see our agreement with pre-modern Christianity on the topic of biblical marriage as a very reassuring sign that we are on the right track….
> When I found the post I left a couple of comments challenging Samson to stop being so evasive. If he feels the need to imply that I’m a pervert for believing in biblical marriage, he should be able to point out the offending text. …
I’m amazed that this blog considers itself to be a “Christian” blog. I haven’t noticed any Christian thinking here, nor any calls to Christian action, nor even any scholarship on the history of Christianity.
If you were arrested on the charge of being a Christian – would there be enough evidence to convict you?
If I was ever angry after the red pill…it was because I was given a lie about what women are from society, media, etc. Everything I knew was wrong after I looked at things realistically. But I don’t hate women because they’ve been given the same lie as well…and that lie is much more enjoyable for them.
Not that I’ll ever know…but I wonder if God judges women less harshly because of their natures or more harshly because without a good strong male influence they can go immoral very easily.
Samson’s Jawbone and other bitter/angry red-pill men are here:
There seems to be a common logical error in the comments. For example, someone said Dalrock had an unusually upbeat outlook, probably not his exact words.
And, no one has a game plan.
Wrong. This all assumes that all men will continue to live in a sick, misandrist society. In fact some of the most upbeat men I find on the manosphere have expatted and love it.
I understand most men do not have what it takes to expat, and no one should criticize those who choose to stick it out. But, to not even consider nor discuss the possiblity, then announce there is no game plan? A bit much there, guys.
@zhai2nan2
Look at the archives, if you want to know about Christian thinking. Plenty of scripture quotation and discussion there.
Infowarrior beat me to it. Not all of Dalrock’s posts are necessarily Christian in nature, but the foundation is always present.
“God does occasionally expect men man to man up and marry whores.”
Following that line of thinking would also make Hosea culpable for his wife’s idolatry and given that Hosea is an allegory for God’s relationship with Israel it would also mean that God was culpable for Israel being led astray.
Hosea
“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”
Brother Karamozov —
“This is where we find a lot of the prominent voices of the MRA. They’re documenting the decline and focusing on “education,” which is useful, certainly. However they don’t have a game plan. Proposing legislation that will never be passed is not a game plan. We’re not women: we can’t rely on hypergamy to push our views. We can’t change laws without changing culture. . . .
The re-emergence of hope in the form of the Game and MRA community will come from playing and winning.”
my hope certainly isn’t in Game, nor in the MRA community (not sure what thatd be anyway)
the Bible is my Game Plan, Jesus lived by the prophets’ words, so that’s plenty good enough for someone like me
if you have the promptings of the spirit, and act on them, then you dont have to plan stuff, it all works out
generally, i v much like what i see, the expression of socially, and politically, suppressed truth . . . the calling-out of iniquity, bullying, thieving, the dissatisfaction with the stomping on boys/men
so i disagree, while direct interervention like say F and F, or avfm, is great, these other venues of honest expression are desperately needed, extremely effective, and much-welcome
that does dubble for sites that seek to please Father, and Christ, and to restore a biblical world, via biblical manhood
sincere efforts at exposing and exterminating feminism, herein and elsewhere, gradually reverse the Fall — these are stones in the eternal temple of the coming Kingdom . . . our King is the embodiment of TRUTH, so obviously that’s what i shoot towards
so i believe this efforts not only to be worthwhile, but absolutely critical
Game will fall away into nothingness, but good works done for God stay on the vine forever
zhai2nan2
your comment was unproductive and shows a lack of real world understanding. Very churchian. You seem to be still playing the my dad’s dick is bigger than yours game. And then declaring yourself more biblical than thou because you can cite more churchian bullshit.
Dalrock, I like your writing – really, I do. But, TBH, I honestly believe that you and the Christian manospere are really red pill men just looking for a way to be happy living with a woman who has her feminist Glock pointed at your head. As long as the marriage contract is what it is and as long as the social climate is what it is, no man should consider the suicide mission of engaging a woman. Through their movement, the have turned themselves into a liability and a threat to the welfare of a man and his life. You’d be safer joining the military and volunteering to be the guy to try talking down suicide bombers.
Well, I am an athiest but I was raised in a weird feminist/socon christian family, anglican/episcopal, and I think I have a pretty good idea why guys end up like this. I was like this to a degree, before I found the MRM and right afterwards, and have grown out of it a bit but also still see women as contemptable things.
I think this split happens for one basic reason: differences in foundational beliefs, one belief in particular.
Most of you seem to be traditionalists in a gender sense, not tradcon so much. By this I mean that you have already, whether due to religion or upbringing or some combination of both or simply life experience or an x factor or all of the above, accepted that men and women are different on a base level before you found the mrm. Not all guys, I would wager most, especially most in my generation(20s or younger), come from a background where that was taken for granted.
Even if the person is a christian and has been going to church every sunday and wens night their entire life there is a large possibility that they have never encountered a sermon that talks about the differences between men and women. I know that that has never been mentioned in any sunday schools, bible schools, or sermons that I have experienced at any of the difference churches I went to growing up(ranging from episcopal/anglican to methodist and baptist and even evangelical). It simply is never brought up. In fact, you are more likely to find some sort of feminist crap being preached about, even in TN where I live.
Add ontop of all that the constant drum of men and women are equal, often time SAID IN WAYS TO MAKE YOU THINK THAT WE DON”T JUST HAVE EQUAL WORTH BUT ARE INTERCHANGEABLE (capped for importance)….and what do you expect???
You spend you time as a young man, religious or not, and you treat women how you would treat your bros or (using the golden rule) how you want to be treated and what the fuck do you get in return? At best a lesbo female friend that you can chill with, but that isn’t usually guaranteed. More often the best you get is some weird looks or treated as the beta that you are acting like. The worst can be what you read about on every type of issue related to the MRM.
So, you spend years and years walking around while living this dissonance and you can’t figure out why? So, then you find the MRM and those lies about women being equal that were conditioned into you are shown to be false. Even worse, there is ample evidence that they were conditioned into you for malicious reasons and that there are people who new about it, especially WOMEN, and let you continue to suffer your cognitive dissonance all the while using you to get financial and material and emonotional goods and needs met.
What are you supposed to do with this knowledge? Most of us will adapt in some way. If you are married it will make you a better husband. If you had some success in the sexual and dating markets as a blue pill guy then you are likely to turn into a PUA. If you were isolated or a bit of a loner then you probably go MGTOW. If you were somewhat angry before, then watch out.
This mechanism is one of the reasons why I think so many women, especially younger women, are afraid of mensrights and antifeminists. They realize that if the 90% of the population of men that are betas or lower were to find the truth then it would be an all out war against the female gender. This is why they use social isolation tactics against men. That is where the social shaming comes from.
NOw, here is the thing. We can moralize all we want but it is a perfectly natural reaction to take a former belief, one that was the bedrock of so many beliefs that are tied to your core identity, and realize it is wrong adn then place a target on it to use your anger and pain against. Ahteists do it when they decide that religion is false. Christians do it when they decide that their former sinful ways or lack of belief was false. I know this is a christian blog, so I am not using that example to stir anything up. I simply want to be even handed and point out that if you find someone who is vehemently against a particular thing then there is a very high chance that they were a major supporter of that thing in a former life. Take the anti-porn brigade. Most are made up of former pornstars. Anyways, that is my .02
Interesting bit of scipture Dalrock. It got me to thinking. God no longer desires us to offer up animal sacrifices to prove our obediance to Him. Could He also have moved beyond the need for woman to submit to men? If God’s desires have been shown to change throughout history, then who is to say that they have not changed again?
“Interesting bit of scipture Dalrock. It got me to thinking. God no longer desires us to offer up animal sacrifices to prove our obediance to Him. Could He also have moved beyond the need for woman to submit to men? If God’s desires have been shown to change throughout history, then who is to say that they have not changed again?”
Exactly,which is precisely why no animals have died or been killed since Christ made his sacrifice.
@Denhil
It’s clear you have no idea of the concepts behind
“scipture.”
Here’s a clue, what written in the scipture is what it says and means as to regarding what God meant to communicate to us.
The only way to learn that is to read scipture.
“Interesting bit of scipture Dalrock. It got me to thinking. God no longer desires us to offer up animal sacrifices to prove our obediance to Him. Could He also have moved beyond the need for woman to submit to men? If God’s desires have been shown to change throughout history, then who is to say that they have not changed again?”
Oi. That command was made for the benefit of men AND women, not simply God. Nothing has changed about women that makes them no longer need to submit to their husbands. That part of us has not changed. And so long as we remain human, it never will.
“God no longer desires us to offer up animal sacrifices to prove our obediance to Him. Could He also have moved beyond the need for woman to submit to men? ”
The need for women to submit to men is natural; the need to offer up sacrifice or worship is also natural, though this may not need to take the form of animal sacrifice, especially since OT sacrifice was a prefigurement of the sacrifice of Christ, in which we are called to participate in baptism.
Well, I confess I feel a bit responsible for this kerfuffle. Around the time Samson was announcing his intention to take his ball and go home, I was over at sunshine Mary’s place waxing crude about fellatio and exhorting more wives to engage in said practice with and for their husbands. It is this, I am sure, which has caused Samson to label the Christomanosphere as filled with perverts.
I don’t want to get into whether anyone thinks fellatio is or is not a biblically permissible sex act. It’s really not the point I was trying to make. What I was trying to say is that a wife’s reluctance to do something for her husband that he might want reveals the condition of her heart. It’s pretty clear there are a lot of Christian men complaining that their wives don’t want to have sex with them. And one of the things I’d point out is that a wife having enthusiastically engaged in fellatio with prior sex partners but refusing it to her husband reveals the condition of her heart toward her husband. It reveals how she REALLY feels about him.
It means she is willing to give all of herself to men other than her husband; yet she withholds those bits of herself from her husband. It means she cared more for those men than for her husband. It means she loved those men or wanted those men more than she loves or wants her husband. We can split all the theological hairs we wish; but at bottom, that is what it means. And that is the objection I as a Christian man have on behalf of my married brothers. Their wives ought withhold nothing from their husbands, barring sound biblical doctrine on Christian sexual conduct between a husband and wife.
Yeah, wife: I’ll have what F*ckbuddy Rockbanddrummer and Harley McBadboy got to have.
@deti:
Kind of a side point, but I know of a story, through a sibling, of a pastor’s wife running off with the worship band’s drummer to go play music in a different city. While what the women did was supremely evil (a few kids will be destroyed by her evil choices), part of me couldn’t help but chuckle at an actual example of “F*ckbuddy Rockbanddrummer” happening.
It’s a little weird to have funny theoretical terms actually be literally accurate. I thought you might find an actual example cathartic.
Off-topic but worth a look
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2012/7-8/the-war-against-human-nature-ii-gender-studies-part-1
@DeNihilist
That’s true. He’s moved on to cannibalism. “This is my flesh… This is my blood…” Next.
No. There has never been either a specific or general revelation for women to submit to men. Since one cannot move on from where one has never been: this is a nonsense question…I’m starting to see a pattern.
If we take the Bible as a historical record of God’s interaction with mankind, and if we interpret His fuller revelations as “change”, then we still run into a problem. See, that book we’re using a reference for God’s “changes” says the Lord is perfect and infinite–therefore changeless. But, for the sake of argument, I’ll accept your pathetic premise and answer your question. (I’m a giver.) God is faithful to reveal His Word through prophets, scripture, and even made that Word flesh as the ultimate revelation. So, to answer your question: God is to say. He has not.
I remember you from Zippy’s blog. You’re like all the other feminists: mentally fatuous because your success has made you lazy, and the premise was self-defeating from the start. Is this the best you can do?
To paraphrase it a bit crudely:
Wives, if you were willing to suck Harley McBadboy’s d*ck, but you won’t suck your husbands’ d*cks, it shows that you loved Harley, but you don’t love your husbands.
It shows that your hearts are with Harley and not with your husbands.
It shows that you cared about Harley, and you don’t care about your husbands.
It shows that you still pine away for Harley, and that you resent your husbands.
It shows that you really wanted Harley to marry you; and that you don’t respect your husbands.
For any of you who think I’m encouraging women to engage in sodomy, stop for a minute.
The point is that wives need to check their hearts. Wives need to examine themselves and their hearts. Wives need to be honest with themselves and their husbands about where their hearts truly are. Wives need to examine themselves and see if they are withholding anything from their husbands that rightfully belongs to them.
Deti – Well, I confess I feel a bit responsible for this kerfuffle.
Leaving a trail of Detistruction in your wake.
Think of it this way – prophets, artists, and truthsayers are never appreciated in their own time and country.
I don’t want to get into whether anyone thinks fellatio is or is not a biblically permissible sex act. It’s really not the point I was trying to make.
Some people take things too literally. Often intentionally, so that don’t have to “destroy the romance” of their illusions.
Side note- I don’t know why, say, going to the moon and proving it’s not made of green chase is so terrible. I guess seeing the artistry and, well, “romance” of an epic story like that is too much work than holding on to the warm, fuzzy illusion.
a wife having enthusiastically engaged in fellatio with prior sex partners but refusing it to her husband reveals the condition of her heart toward her husband. It reveals how she REALLY feels about him.
Did you catch the song lyrics I posted at SSM’s? If it can happen to an OG like Ice-T, it can happen to anybody.
nightsky:
detistruction. Heh.
The point is, wives gotta give all they have to their husbands. If they don’t, the husbands will figure it out.
As far as I can tell, Simon Grey is saying:
1. Christian men in the ‘sphere are a bunch of whiny crybaby pussies who won’t take a hard look at themselves to see if they themselves are a cause of their problems. It can’t be all women’s fault.
2. Men (especially PUAs) are worshiping women as idols. This is sin in itself. Men should not be focusing on women’s misbehavior, but rather on their own behavior to see if they are being obedient to God.
3. Men are called to lead women and provide for them, not be nice to them or defer to them. God does this for men: leads them and provides for them. God is not “nice” to His sons nor does He defer to them. The model for a man’s relation to a woman is Christ’s relation to His Church.
4 If God calls a man to man up and marry a whore, then he has to follow God’s calling.
5 Men should man up, lead, get educations, get jobs and live as men. They’re to do this because that’s what God expects of them, not because they want to get sex, improve their sex lives, get women, get married or up their attractiveness. If a man is improving his life in order to get a woman, get more sex or keep his wife, then he’s worshiping a woman, he has an idol, and he’s being disobedient to God.
Now, in Simon’s second piece on “God Will Not Punish Women for their Harlotry”, he is essentially saying men are to blame for women’s rebellion against God and are responsible for women’s sins. He is basically saying women have reduced agency; that they aren’t fully moral or rational actors; aren’t fully capable of making sound decisions or taking prudent courses of action independently; and thus shouldn’t be held fully responsible for their errors in judgment.
Well, then.
I don’t accept that I’m responsible for my wife’s sins. At the Fall and the Original Sin, God held Adam and Eve separately responsible for their sins. Eve’s sin was disobeying God’s command. Adam’s sin was in listening to Eve. God turned to Eve first, told her her sin, and then imposed a consequence on her and her alone. He then turned to Adam, told him his sin; and then meted out Adam’s penalty.
God did not say that Eve was less responsible than Adam. God did not say that Adam was being punished for Eve’s sin. God put Eve’s sin squarely on her. God held Eve fully, personally and solely responsible for her sin. He imposed penalties that she was required to bear; and that her daughters continue to bear to this day: Bearing childbirth in pain and wanting to rule over her husband.
So it is today that a woman is a fully independent moral and rational actor. She is fully, personally and solely responsible for her life, her errors, her mistakes, and her problems. This is why Simon is wrong to say that men have to be perfect before women are held to account for their own lives, both in society and before God.
Second, Simon demands that men “man up” because it’s the right thing to do. What he overlooks is the role of incentive. Society used to encourage and protect men’s endeavors. It no longer does. God didn’t miss incentive either. He told Adam that he’d have to work from now on; but that his work would bring forth fruit. The bible is very clear on sowing and reaping. In the face of all this, men should rightly ask: Man up? Why?
A few people have already made the comparison to Cypher from “The Matrix”, but I see Samson’s disillusionment much the same way I found my own after discovering the manosphere.
If I can extend the Matrix metaphor, Morpheus said “Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.” And I think that’s where things fell apart for Samson. (and to be honest for myself at first)
Once you see things for how they really are, and NOT how you’ve been told your whole life, you’re bound to go a little kerflooey. Does knowing how women really are screw with you? Yes.
But, it’s a good thing. Because only when you know the truth can you move on and change yourself and your situation for the better.
Ray – that article is a hot holy mess. I could spend hours ripping on it. He has just enough truth in there to make the rest appear like a logically derived explanation (and to him, it probably is).
was my read also nightsky — this is the whiteknigt/romanticist narrative he’s been fed all his life, probly as a Kid Churchian from getgo…. so, heavy blue piller, hamster-hogtied
i included him here bc he seemed so typical of mainstream “christianity” and of the type of folk oft discussed here, at rebuking feminism, sunshines, etc.
i rarely bother w the lefties bc their rigidity and massive psychological dependence on females is so profound that it’s too time-consuming trying to crack . . . truly, woman and ideo-politics IS religion for leftie guys, it is sad what theyre missing
the rightie guys, and guys like pore lost Mr Hilliker (he’s probly a Pastor lol, arent all these dishrags-with-dicks “pastors”?) — those guys are worth targeting, some of them can be reasoned-with, some will respond to biblical commands, and some of the christian righties at least will entertain “radical” dialogue concerning feminism, women, and the western churches
i commented at his blog, i doubt he’ll publish it but it’s a duty at least to OFFER these guys the Scriptural realities about women and men, about whats happening in their cultures, and about God’s loving care and guidelines for both males and females— rules designed not to oppress people, but to keep them in wholesome ways that lead to mutual contentment and increase
http://thecurrentconscience.com/blog/
Ray, try this guy on, Yashar Ali. Take phenergan prior to reading.
I remember that post at Simon’s blog and thinking “ok, here we go again”. I think It’s true of course that a failure of male leadership facilitated the rebellion, but it’s very much a radical overstatement to suggest that this means that men are responsible for the rebellion itself or that women bear lesser responsibility for their rebellion. This is one upping God, who clearly holds no such view of lessened female responsibility for their own rebellion in Genesis 3.
As for Samson, hating women is stupid. Understanding what they really are, rather than listening to their own guff, is what is called for, and acting accordingly.
“She is fully, personally and solely responsible for her life, her errors, her mistakes, and her problems.”
But the lie they believe is that they don’t have to be. It’s always (insert somebody else) fault. It’s dangerous thinking because they can’t improve and they can’t ever forgive. If you can’t forgive your faults…how can you expect God to?
From my perspective…I realize I sin, a lot…even when I know I shouldn’t. That’s why I go to confession regularly. The best part about it is even though you hate admitting you have faults…it forces you to lay them out there for your forgiveness and gives God a shot to help you out of them. Stewing on faults, blaming others, not doing anything about it will make your life go downhill fast.
Do not underestimate the concept of forgiveness in advance. Its not literally seen as such, it is an emotional trick everyone is prone to, but the things we discuss here, the things women do, these are, dontcha know, covered by grace and forgivable
“Do not underestimate the concept of forgiveness in advance.”
How could I forget that logic. God forgives all our sins even before we commit them. Therefore it’s fine to sin to your heart’s pleasure…so that God can do a whole bunch of forgiving. Really we are doing Him a favor.
deti: To paraphrase it a bit crudely: Wives, if you were willing to suck Harley McBadboy’s d*ck, but you won’t suck your husbands’ d*cks, it shows that you loved Harley, but you don’t love your husbands.
I’m not sure that I would jump to the same conclusion, I would more guess that some women simply suck only those boyfriends whom she figures will replace her if she doesn’t. In other words, oral is a bargaining chip to them, not a barometer of love. (yes, I’m red-pill enough to know how those two explanations are linked.) But it can backfire.
I had a girl do that once years ago, she even told me early on that she considered oral one of her talents, then when I brought it up, she picked a huge fight. She wouldn’t do it, but also would not let the matter drop, I think because she was afraid what would happen if she just said no. Turns out she had good reason to be afraid because I cheated on her after that, the only woman whom I’ve ever done that to. To this day I can’t bring myself to regret it.
I don’t expect anyone to endorse what I did, but neither should they flame me defensively, because a lot of other guys will do it too and getting mad at me doesn’t change that. Serial mistresses will even tell you so. Google “prowling with kat 10 tips for wives to keep your husband” (warning, NSFW content so no link) and it’s the top match. (You have to turn off Google’s safe browsing feature if it’s on, and Google might first try to show you results for cat instead of kat, so click “show results for kat” if it does.)
“For instance, most of the manosphere denizens are perverts. Even at the supposedly “Christian” sites, most of the men are perverts. I mean this not as a pejorative, but in a literal, clinical sense: these men’s ideas about proper sexuality have been perverted; corrupted. On these sites, there is a good deal of posturing about wifely “submission”, but an awful lot of the time this is followed by complaints that a wife won’t “submit” – to her husband’s pleas for sodomy.”
Yes it’s true, all I want out of MRA/PUA is more kinky sex and not de jure equality and fair sentencing.
I just want the laws of misandry gone. I don’t care if i never get a piece of ass off another bitch for as long as I live. I just don’t want my son to live under misandry even if socially as a male he his hated for being male It should not be written and enforced by law.
Cane Caldo says:
February 3, 2013 at 12:27 am
Cane, good point. (I saying that to Cane, wow.)
Now, in Simon’s second piece on “God Will Not Punish Women for their Harlotry”, he is essentially saying men are to blame for women’s rebellion against God and are responsible for women’s sins. He is basically saying women have reduced agency; that they aren’t fully moral or rational actors; aren’t fully capable of making sound decisions or taking prudent courses of action independently; and thus shouldn’t be held fully responsible for their errors in judgment.
Second, Simon demands that men “man up” because it’s the right thing to do. What he overlooks is the role of incentive. Society used to encourage and protect men’s endeavors. It no longer does. God didn’t miss incentive either. He told Adam that he’d have to work from now on; but that his work would bring forth fruit. The bible is very clear on sowing and reaping. In the face of all this, men should rightly ask: Man up? Why?
Game, set, match. This is the crux of the problem with evangelical discourse on the troubles you see between men and women, a problem which is manifest in some non-evangelical spheres (see Kay Hymowitz of the Manhattan Institute). Young men are treated as scapegoats but left with little for which to strive while a wretched carbuncle of the age – the common failure to educate girls in such a way that they feel personal agency and responsibility to the marrow of their bones – goes unaddressed. In fact, this man acts to exacerbate the problem just as surely as the most rancid chic circle, the most fatuous mother, and the most asinine magazine editor. Stick a fork in him.
deti says:
February 3, 2013 at 1:58 am
Another great one, deti. God, thru Paul said if you burn for ‘her’, marry ‘her’. Don’t just marry any women. Then it certainly becomes your problem.
Art Deco
I truely think the reason for Simon’s removal of agency from women is is worship of popularity. It is easy to be a faithful christian man when it is popular and who the women want to fuck. The church went churchian and called it being inclusive or staying up to date,etc etc. Simon has chosen a path of popularity and has convinced himself being pc is leadership. Throw in a few crosses and say God and Jesus a few times along with christian and you become a PC churchian. The man baselined his life and faith on the feminine imperative. All this red pill stuff violates his foundation. First his blue pill idolatry and faith in women. And next his churchian faith in feminine churchianship he calls christianity. As far as he knows he is right because it looks like the majority of the people calling themselves christian are actually churchian. (popular)
Samson seems to think that “have you stopped beating your wife yet?” is a great way to end an argument, without even saying who ‘you’ is.
Men are finding out that they’ve been lied to about women for most of their lives, ever since the first time they were told “sugar and spice and everything nice.” These lies caused them to miss opportunities to marry an attractive woman when they were young, to waste years of their lives single and alone, trying to figure out what was wrong with them. In some cases the lies cost them wife, family, home, sometimes livelihood.
Yeah, I can’t imagine why men are angry, or why they might overreact sometimes. Let’s not have any empathy for such men, whatever we do. Let’s just demand that they write off the pain of lost years and relationships overnight when they discover the truth, and take on the responsibility for fixing this mess that they just discovered exists. Yeah, that makes sense.
Gammas refuse to take personal responsibility for their lives, they lack the inner courage to be accountable to themselves when things go wrong. When these men turn to religion, it’s not as a source of strength – they don’t want that – it’s as a protector and patron. They want the church to take care of them, make their decisions for them, and absolve them of responsibility.
Speaking of which:
This idea that men have to be perfect before we can expect anything from women is more of the standard fare we get from feminised Christian leaders, and it has no basis in Scripture.
Yes, well, this is just another way of dodging responsibility, by creating an impossible standard that no one could live up to. That way the Gamma can declare the Alphas and Betas to be failures too, even if they are accomplishing far more and creating better lives for themselves and their families. The Gamma can still claim “So what? They’re not perfect, so it doesn’t matter.” It’s a way of claiming he’s their equal because everyone fell short of perfection. And then declaring it to be God’s standard is the capper, since the standard itself isn’t even their fault.
I do think that omega and gamma withdrawl from the SMP is costing players and alphas more…
Nonsense. Omegas and Gammas were never in the SMP to begin with.
Pingback: Be sober: the ferals are drunk. | Dark Brightness
@sunshinemary
“This is so true. Once you start noticing the tendency of Christian leaders to blame everything women do on men, it’s a little startling how pervasive it is. It’s pretty much standard for both the most liberal and the most “conservative” wings of the faith, too.”
Today, I couldn’t believe what I heard on a Christian radio station regarding the stability of society and marriage. The program stated that in Los Angeles county 85% of the men incarcerated are from fatherless homes. And it went on to claim that men have not lived up to their marriage obligations which has caused such lack of stability of society. Not one mention about the behavior of the women involved. It then went on about how homosexual marriages also contribute to lack of stability. It gave one example of a lesbian marriage that survived, but mentioned that it was the exception. Here again, homosexual unions are bad (men are involved) and lesbian unions (women are involved) are undesirable because they also contribute to lack of stability but not as must as homosexual unions.
Cane, you agree with the change on sacrifice, then come up with a view that God is changeless.
So are you able to eat your cake and have it too?
DeNihilist- The difference is that animal sacrifice was under the dispensation of Mosaic law, and was before the Messiah.
Once the Messiah came, he made animal sacrifice obsolete, and we entered into the dispensation of grace. Mosaic law was fulfilled.
However, from Adam and Eve to Paul, who wrote half the New Testament, and well after Jesus was sacrificed.. the bible has been wholly consistent in terms of Man/woman relationships. Paul was stark and clear about the role of men and women in the family who loves God, just as God was when He looked Eve in the eye and rebuked her, giving her direct consequence.
Thus, your alignment of animal sacrifice being obsolete, therefore maybe the male authority thing is obsolete as well… just doesn’t work. It’s a peachy idea, but doesn’t hold water.
Cheers
@DeNihilist
No, I don’t agree with the change in sacrifice. That’s where you’re mistaken. I condescended to you, and argued from a point of view you’d understand. That is: I entered into your world of ignorant thought, and showed you what little you could understand; not the whole truth. This is the Gospel, in a nutshell.)
Now you’re trying to hold it against me for stooping to your level. This is another cue that–whether you recognize it or not–you’re a liberal. You are known from their rallying cry: “Hypocrite!” See, liberals have no virtues of their own as they threw them all out. They have to appeal to the traditionalist’s.
@Solomon
You’re falling for a reframe, and bad theology. Christ did not make animal sacrifice obsolete–He was the thing that the cave-drawing of sacrifice was alluding to. When we teach children to read, we start with the alphabet. Then words smallest to biggest. Finally, we have them read big boring books by Russian authors. Once we’re convinced they know how to read, we never ask them to repeat the alphabet again.
DeNihilist sees this and says: “Russian novels are the new sacrifice! The alphabet is unnecessary! Teaching words is obsolete!”
That’s liberalism.
we have them read big boring books by Russian authors
or just listen to B side music from terry Jacks
WIll S.
“Some people really are like Cypher, and would prefer to unlearn unpleasant things they’ve learned, and thus turn on those who opened their eyes, and former friends.”
Samson went down the rabbit hole and the truths he found horrified him. He’s unable to come to terms with those truths and accept the world as it is. He has decided not to unlearn them, but rather to recast as perverts those who rediscovered them and are attempting new ways to respond, harness and contain them.
“And some would castigate the entire manosphere for the ostensible shortcomings of a few bloggers and associated commentariat,”
Let’s get to the nub of this. Samson thinks men in the manosphere are overly fascinated with oral sex. Samson also apparently thinks there’s a fixation on anal sex. This is ridiculous. The only one who talks about anal sex is GBFM and it’s done in a tongue firmly in cheek manner. “Buttthexing”. LOL. All I noted was that many men like it when their wives fellate them; and that if more wives did, it would go a long, long way toward solving marital issues.
Come on, people. I am really not seeing men around the ‘sphere wailing and ranting because their wives won’t engage in anal sex. They are complaining because they can’t get their wives to do ANYTHING sexual with them — and thus these wives are breaching and shirking their most fundamental marital duty.
As I said above — the issue is not so much sex practices, but the condition of wives’ hearts. Why do they refuse their husbands when they eagerly participated with premarital paramours? This is a wholly legitimate question, and it’s one that needs answering. And it is one for which women must be held accountable.
This blog is really helping me, but I have to point out something I see as an inconstancy.
Blue pill: Women are not reasonable for their actions because men are not treating them good enough.
Red pill: Women are not responsible for their actions because men are not holding them accountable.
Both are giving women a free ride and saying that they are not responsible for their actions. I don’t see this as biblical.
I see feminism as downing out the consciences of women, but they still have no excuse for doing what’s wrong.
Any insights would be appreciated.
@zhai2nan2 on February 2, 2013 at 7:33 PM
(drivel omitted)
If you were arrested on the charge of being a Christian – would there be enough evidence to convict you?
“Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.” 1 Cor 4:5
Nice try, though.
Cane, your comment is lame.
I’m not interested in your input in general.
I stand by my comment as stated. Go fuss with someone else.
As I said above — the issue is not so much sex practices, but the condition of wives’ hearts. Why do they refuse their husbands when they eagerly participated with premarital paramours? This is a wholly legitimate question, and it’s one that needs answering. And it is one for which women must be held accountable.
Every time I read comments like this one I cannot help but wonder, who are these women who are discussing how the gave other men bjs with their husbands? It seems that a woman would have to be beyond stupid to discuss the intimate details of her previous sex life with her husband. Are husband’s just assuming that they are getting less in the bedroom than other men got or do they actually know? Anyway I don’t want to derail this conversation, but it seems like the women who’ve had sex with men other than their husbands could save their husbands a lot of grief if they just kept their mouths shut about what they put in their mouths and other orfices before they married. I don’t see how any good could come of discussing this with your spouse.
Pingback: You might not hear this in church, but… « Gamesmanship
I encourage everyone to avoid taking T’s bait. Do *not* derail.
@Solomon
You have the same misconception that Novaseeker does: that I need or desire your approval to engage you. I don’t. If you don’t like it, you shouldn’t respond. What you’re really implying is that you dont like that you want me to engage you. That’s your problem.
The dispensation of grace has been there since the beginning.it didn’t “change”, but was revealed. To go back to my analogy: You argued that Russian novels don’t exist until someone shows them to you. That’s some serious Continental philosophy bullshit–the source of modern liberalism.
You simply have bad theology.
Blue pill: Women are not reasonable for their actions because men are not treating them good enough.
Red pill: Women are not responsible for their actions because men are not holding them accountable.
It’s more like:
Blue Pill = Women are not responsible because men are not manning up, and everything women are doing that is undesirable is due to men not manning up (most trads also agree)
Red Pill = Women are responsible for their own actions and sins, yet as a husband you need to husband a woman, which means understanding her predilictions, needs and what makes her tick, and managing accordingly
Blue is “women are mystery”, etc., Red is “women are not a mystery, this is how they are, and this is how they can be managed/husbanded effectively”.
Solomon, very nicely put. Thanx. I will ponder this. Always nice to get some knowledge in a mature way.
I don’t understand how a Christian can be against this or Vox’s blog.
T, one of my wifes’ and mine best friends is one of her old boyfriends. In the 25 years we have been married, I have neither asked, nor has she ever offered about their physical aspects. What she did before she knew me, and vice-a-versa is not really concerning to either of us. We made a vow to each other and have been working on it every day for a quarter century. Besides, her old boyfriend is one of the funniest people I have ever met!
I’d like to address what I think Simon Grey and Samson are saying:
1. “The Christomanosphere is full of whiny crybaby pussyboys who stand around blaming women for all their problems.”
RESPONSE: There are some around these parts who do that, but not all do so. The argument is a false dichotomy. It presumes that men have no legitimate complaints at all. This is not so. The problems in intergender relations are clear, and it’s not all men’s fault. It is perfectly legitimate and reasonable for men to point out, draw attention to, and hold women accountable for, their roles in causing the breakdown of intergender relations.
2. “Men need to examine themselves and make sure that they are not in sin.”
RESPONSE; Fair enough. There is a growing recognition in the ‘sphere that men cannot sit on their laurels and complain. Most know what their problems are; and those who don’t are told in no uncertain terms what they need to do, Lose weight. Lift weights. Hit the gym. Eat better. Get out of a relationship that’s not working. Change your hairstyle. Get educated or employed, Quit your sucky job. Get a new job. Go on walkabout/rumspringa and figure out what you want/need to do with your life. Get out of the rut. Move to a new city. Stop being a follower in your marriage and start leading. Stop the beta behavior and introduce more alpha.
There is no similar exhortation to women to engage in this kind of soul searching and quest for self improvement. No one other than the manosphere is telling women they need to lose weight and be feminine.
3. “Men have to man up and be men first; then we’ll talk about the women’s failures.”
No. Men are responsible for their failures; women are responsible and accountable for theirs. Both need to work on improvement simultaneously.
4. “God punishes men for women’s moral failures. That’s why women are getting to ride the carousel with impunity.”
As Simon himself points out, it’s not without consequence — more and more women can’t find husbands at 40. But that’s not men’s fault. All men are not morally or socially responsible for all women. And women are fully accountable to God (if not society) for their conduct. In fact, women were recognizing the harsh consequences their immoral, poorly thought out decisions were imposing on their own conduct. Feminism has done a masterful job of alleviating most of those material consequences.
But even worse, this argument suggests women in general have less agency than men; that women are less accountable for their errors, mistakes and decisions. That won’t do. No, if women are going to operate as fully functional human beings, then they have exactly the same moral responsibilities to God as men do — obedience to God’s commandments and accountability for disobedience. And they have the same credit or culpability as men do in intergender relations.
Or, if the converse is true; and women do have less agency and moral accountability, then it must be recognized that: (1) women MUST submit to their fathers until marriage and then to the husbands after marriage; and (2) men must be given authority to carry out the responsibilities they have in marriage; and women must submit to that authority.
5. “Men need to man up because God commands it and because it’s the right thing to do; not because you want sex or a woman.”
God does expect obedience from men and does make the rules. But He also rewarded His sons and incentivized them. He banished Adam from Eden and cursed him with having to work; but promised his work would bear fruit. He promises blessings for those who follow Him and keep His commandments. Do those “blessings” always include a wife and great sex? Not always; but it does for most.
T:
I reject the reframe.
The issue is: What is the condition of the wife’s heart toward her husband? Her conduct toward her husband as compared with her conduct toward previous lovers speaks volumes to how she feels about him.
@Troll King on February 2, 2013 at 9:39 PM
Ahteists do it when they decide that religion is false. Christians do it when they decide that their former sinful ways or lack of belief was false. I know this is a christian blog, so I am not using that example to stir anything up. I simply want to be even handed and point out that if you find someone who is vehemently against a particular thing then there is a very high chance that they were a major supporter of that thing in a former life.
“The heresies that men leave are hated most.” But there *is* one other factor; or rather, two, which argue against this merely being reaction. One in involuntary celibacy on men while women enjoy the Carousel; the other is divorce rape whilst 60% – 70% of America’s divorces are *instigated* by women. Oh, come to think of it a third one: women are allowed to sleep around on their man without *real* consequence (“think of the *children*! and spurious allegations of whatever the woman wants to cook up…there have been high-profile cases in the news recently of women accusing third-party men of *rape*, KNOWING IT TO BE A BALDFACE LIE, NO RAPE HAVING HAPPENED, recently), whereas men in the real world cannot ask out a woman without the very real risk of being sued for harassment.
All these things are independent of “former lives” for many in the manosphere: some are already full-fledged MGTOW acolytes without ever having dated or married; and you know, you might have noticed, a goodly number of the commenters and/or bloggers are, well, not to put too fine a point on it, women.
I hereby downgrade you to Troll Duke.
Dalrock, for what it’s worth, I appreciate the “ministry” you provide. I think that I have learned more from Christian men on this site then I have from the men at church. Here people are honest and frank about their honest situations in life, whether it be good or good. The men in church are never honest and tend to hide behind a mask. To quote GBFM in an earlier comment :”da h8rs gonna h8! lzozozzlzo”
@DeNihilist
“very nicely put” (mother approved!)
“Thanx” (chickspeak)
“I will ponder this.” (typical lie one woman tells another)
“mature way” (not actually said to Solomon)
No wonder you don’t dare ask your wife about her sexual past. There might be men in it. How are you supposed to compete with that?
Cane Caldo
See, you could have helped me. You could have given me the benefit of the doubt, and reminded me of those several points, so we could have clarified, possibly even agreed.
Instead, you hit me over the head with how I have bad theology, how my bullshit is the source for liberalism, how I am “falling for bad theology”…. then you presumed to have inside knowledge on what I actually want and what I believe.
That is bad form, sir.
You exhibit that it is unwise to hold court with you, with your eagerness to insult, to assert, and presume, in such a fashion that anyone can see that the discussion will not be fruitful but contentious. If you find it most productive to be contentious here, then rock on, I guess.
If you were out to help me, like men around here are supposed to be helping each other, then maybe we could have found some common ground, and I would even be improved, dusting off and polishing up all the theology teaching I got over the years.
Instead, I asked you to leave me alone, because I don’t come here to be contentious, and you have shown that you aren’t the kind of person who wants to help me.
I really would prefer that you simply avoid me. Go ahead and mix it up all you like with the others, but you and I have gotten off on the wrong foot, and I don’t see it improving. I know I’m in a public forum, and it is your prerogative to engage me when I participate. I’m just asking you not to. I prefer to have discussions with others here who operate differently than you are with me in this thread.
I’m not your enemy, and I would rather put aside the occasional doctrinal difference for the sake of solidarity, productivity, and to best position us to help others who might be receptive. If they come here and see endless pissing matches between MEN, our credibility will be diminished mutually. You might go forth enthusiastically down that path, but I’ll pass.
Yeah, I know you are going to bust on me some more for this, try and draw me back in to more of your mash-up.
Kinda like that ‘T’ chick.
*sigh*
@Novaseeker
Thanks for the response.
I’m assuming that you can’t force women to be husbanded. So their feral ways are their own fault and choice. So men need to “man up and husband those good women”. But there are no good women to husband, unless we go alpha and game them?
The conclusion would seem that 99% of women are in rebellion to God.
Something I’ve been praying for is to know if women really can’t help it. If they can help it, then they should bee able to help it without male help. If they can’t help it, then they are not the problem, someone else is.
I’m unsure which way i’m leaning. I’m hoping the Lord gives me an answer soon.
Deti,
A lot of people just find it easier to go along then to be their own selves. Just look at the Lipstick Game, that has been happening in high schools for a few years now. Peer pressure at younger ages is very strong.
I am not sure if you have children, but I know in my life, when the first child arrived, my whole world view changed. I submit to you, that what is in a womans heart when she is with rockdrummer buddy, is quite different then when she is with her husband.
I knew a couple of girls growing up that gave bj’s to their boyfriends, because they wanted to save the virginity for their husbands.
“T, one of my wifes’ and mine best friends is one of her old boyfriends. In the 25 years we have been married, I have neither asked, nor has she ever offered about their physical aspects. What she did before she knew me, and vice-a-versa is not really concerning to either of us. We made a vow to each other and have been working on it every day for a quarter century. Besides, her old boyfriend is one of the funniest people I have ever met!”
I cannot imagine an old boyfriend being friends with my husband and my old boyfriends did not get to have any sort of sex with me. I dont think that he would tolerate the presence of a man who’d so much as held my hand. However I do think that it is sensible not to ask questions if the answers are going to fill you with insecurity about how she feels about you emotionally and sexually. Your wife is smart to keep that information to herself.
OK. I kind of discussed this on my blot (trackbacks are up) but I think the “man up” bit is poor tactics and “men must be perfect” is heresy.
The one place we should man up is in the leadership of the church. Christian men have to take this back, bit by bit, accepting that we will be rejected by many in the heirarchy. When the liberals deliberately appoint separtist lesbians to the ministry, then that congregation is fucked: the only way out is to leave. When feminists rule the teaching and the idea of roles is not taught along with some fairly blunt advice around how you are wired — that touch and vision inflame desire — then there needs to e a correction in teaching.
Some of us who are male Christians are trying to work through this.
But expecting us to be perfect? Well, that relates to the heresy of the Holiness movement, and a spiritual form of hypergamy where women feel that the only way they can submit is is fheir spouse has more spiritual brownie points (merit badges) than they do.
Yeah. Right.
This is clearly against the teaching of the reformed that we are all sinful. It makes the Catholic veneration of saints appear like the most mild form of iconlatory — even the Apostles would not meet their standards. Peter had a temper. Paul was chronically ill, as was Timothy. The only high status one was Luke (physician) and he threw that status away.
The discipline of marriage — I say with fear and trembling, because my wife did refuse to keep her word when I took this job and the consequence is that I’m divorced while she is a good churchian — is that men have to love their imperfect wives and treat them gently, and women have to obey their husbands.
The evangelical branch of the manosphere is preaching what, to the Churchians, is heresy. Our Catholic and Orthodox friends have it a bit easier, but we all swim in an ocean where any of us can be divorced, or made bankrupt because we have offended some neurotic woman. We do not always get it right.
And we should not pretend that.
Cane, you really think that i have never been to a blog before? You think I cannot see your game? “liberal”, “feminist”, “mother approved” “chickspeak” etc. Suprised you didn’t throw in denialist, but that wouldn’t work here would it? considering that in all probability, the majority of participants would consider themselves conservative, therefore, the majority of that majority, would be cool on global warming.
You throw this out – {that I need or desire your approval to engage you. I don’t.} to show your ruggedness, but are playing the rally the troops to ostracize the newbie, by throwing out loaded words to the crowd, trying to get them to support you. Yup, real rugged.
Cane, are you Able to get through a post without trying to belittle someone?
T, I am missing the jealousy gene. To much energy spent on hate and suspicion.
@Deti
As I said above — the issue is not so much sex practices, but the condition of wives’ hearts. Why do they refuse their husbands when they eagerly participated with premarital paramours? This is a wholly legitimate question, and it’s one that needs answering. And it is one for which women must be held accountable.
You are still deep in the matrix.
Love and sex are two separate things. In fact, their expression is modulated by two separate neural circuits.
The idea that sex is the end point of love is a romantic idea. It is not based upon any finding of biological reality. The fact of the matter is that women can experience deep affection for their husbands despite have no sexual desire for them.
Now the reason why women may not be sexually attracted to their husbands may be due to innate factors such as fatigue, anxiety and illness. However, if these are not the issue, the reason why the wife may be sexually unresponsive to her husband is because he is sexually unattractive. I know this may be a hard task for some of the commentators here to grasp, but perhaps, just perhaps, the wife is ok and the fault lays with the husband. Perhaps the husband has absolutely no charisma, has an external locus of control, cannot make a decision, is lazy, is not houseproud, can’t keep a job down, lacks any ambition or is too needy. The list can go on.
The sexual response in both men and women is conditional to external stimuli. No amount of “willing” on my part will get me horny for a fat chick. It just won’t happen because my brain is not wired that way. Likewise, women will get horny (and dirty) only if her partner is sexually attractive. If he is not, nothing is going to happen. Blaming women for not getting horny for husbands with zero masculinity is like blaming men for not getting horny around ugly women. It’s like complaining about the unfairness of gravity or the wickedness of the second law of thermodynamics.
It’s a denial of reality.
Oh, and having a Y chromosome makes a male but does not impart masculinity.
Simon pushes a bit too hard on the subject of male responsibility but he is absolutely correct in stating that a large part of the manosphere has been influenced by MRA types who want to blame everything on women–avoiding, by implication, that there is anything wrong with men. The whole point about “Game” is that it recognises that men without it are deficient in the goods which make them attractive to females. Game recognises in order to trigger a woman’s sexual response a man needs to possess sexual characteristics which will make the woman horny. Lack of these characteristics means nothing is going to happen–even in a biblical marriage. Sure a pious woman may lay down and let her husband have his “conjugal rights” but if you want your woman to want you, you’ve got to have the sexual goods.
This is why MRA types earn my contempt. I’ve got no problems with supporting them when fundamental issues of justice are at play-i.e custodial rights, child support and other such legal issues, but I have a real problem when they start bleating about how their sexless marriages are always the fault of their wives and a characteristic of women in general.
I know plenty of women who have been screwed over by their husbands. I know plenty of men who will refuse to pay any money for the upbringing of their own child. I know plenty of husbands who simply don’t want any contact with their children, especially if they’re little. Yeah, I know there are good men that have been screwed over as well but not sex has a monopoly on goodness or evil. The MRA types will do well to remember that.
DeNihilist:
“I submit to you, that what is in a womans heart when she is with rockdrummer buddy, is quite different then when she is with her husband.”
Sometimes. But women carry alpha memories for decades. Comparisons are inevitable. F*ckbuddy Rockbanddrummer can cast a long shadow. All you need to do is read all the stories by women of “the one who got away” and admissions by women of “I’m still in love with my first boyfriend”.
T:
“However I do think that it is sensible not to ask questions if the answers are going to fill you with insecurity about how she feels about you emotionally and sexually. Your wife is smart to keep that information to herself.”
That’s fine, as long as W can put her past behind her and never let it affect her marriage. The problem is that many times, she can’t or won’t put it behind her. She’s pining away for her superalpha. She compares her husband unfavorably to her past lovers. It inevitably comes out; and it has to be dealt with then, months or years into a marriage that the wife is miserable in because she married a man she’s not attracted to and doesn’t love. This is why we have “I’m not haaaaaappy” divorces. W is unhappy, she doesn’t love her husband, and she doesn’t know why. MOst of the time — it’s because she married a man she isn’t attracted to, is no longer attracted to; or no longer is attracted to; and she’s reconnected with F*ckbuddy Rockbanddrummer on Face book.
@Solomon
This is what I said:
Granted there were two points of criticism right in the beginning.
1. Someone has tried to trick you. (DeNihilist)
2. Someone has lied to you (whoever taught you your theology)
Neither of those are really even criticism of you. And what follows is not criticism of you, but of DeNihist, who strikes me as a chick with every word it writes, but professes to be a man! Why do you take offense? The only reasons that makes any sense are that you’re either too easily offended, or you want to be offended. I am gambling (with very low stakes) that it’s the previous.
I have spoken to you here like a brother–man to man, with almost zero criticism of you–and you have responded like a sister that you don’t care what I have to say, and that I’m lame (even if right) because you don’t like my tone. Even after insulting you I responded to you like a brother.
And you retort with a diatribe about how you don’t like my attitude. WHAT ATTITUDE? What THE FUCK has been done to you that you get offended when I state things factually, and without insult; even when you have overtly insulted me? Does this strike you as manly behavior, if you had seen it from the outside instead of as a participant? What has driven you–a writer of dominance and male-female relations–to such a womanly pose?
Yup Deti, after a good fight, I suddenly remember how much I still love my first girlfriend. Then I take a breath, get out of the emotional dream, and re-commit to my wife.
Slumlord:
I wouldn’t say I’m in the matrix.
Read my comment at 4:04 pm above. I’ve recopied the pertinent part below:
“There is a growing recognition in the ‘sphere that men cannot sit on their laurels and complain. Most know what their problems are; and those who don’t are told in no uncertain terms what they need to do, Lose weight. Lift weights. Hit the gym. Eat better. Get out of a relationship that’s not working. Change your hairstyle. Get educated or employed, Quit your sucky job. Get a new job. Go on walkabout/rumspringa and figure out what you want/need to do with your life. Get out of the rut. Move to a new city. Stop being a follower in your marriage and start leading. Stop the beta behavior and introduce more alpha.
There is no similar exhortation to women to engage in this kind of soul searching and quest for self improvement. No one other than the manosphere is telling women they need to lose weight and be feminine.”
I don’t see too many women telling other women to:
1. Lose weight.
2. Be nice and stop acting like bitches.
3. Be more feminine.
4. Lower your insane standards for men.
5. Stop acting like and being sluts.
denihilist:
Yes, because you see life as it is, not as it ought to be. Your ex GF is in the past. But some women can’t seem to shake their alpha sex partners, and constantly use them as yardsticks against which all subsequent men are measured.
Men’s brains don’t work like women’s brains. As slumlord points out, sex and love are two different things. That’s why women can love their husbands but not be “in love with” (i.e. sexually attracted to) their husbands. In other words, “I love you, hubby. I just don’t want to f*ck you anymore.” Or “I love you, hubby; but I never really liked f*cking you.”
I’m assuming that you can’t force women to be husbanded. So their feral ways are their own fault and choice. So men need to “man up and husband those good women”. But there are no good women to husband, unless we go alpha and game them?
The conclusion would seem that 99% of women are in rebellion to God.
Not man up and overcome the feral, in terms of female promiscuity (serial LTRs), but rather be as selective as Dal recommends here on his mate selection post and then exercise husbandry with respect to her normal, female-ness (desire to be heard, desire to not be in charge, etc.). That is husbandry with respect to a woman, but it of course need to be tailored to the specific woman. It certainly doesn’t mean “man up and marry these feral sluts”. You need to be very, very selective now.
Something I’ve been praying for is to know if women really can’t help it. If they can help it, then they should bee able to help it without male help. If they can’t help it, then they are not the problem, someone else is.
Women can’t help being hypergamous, they can’t help the impulse to shit test, they can’t help the impulse to upgrade. All of these can be controlled by a woman to some degree. But that degree increases proportionate to how well you can husband her, just as the degree to which a man can control his negative impulses increases proportionate to how well his wife nurtures him in a feminine way. This is a real symbiosis. It’s not easy to do with most people in contemporary society, because most people are not open to it and rather would have their own initiative, instead of giving way to the counter-nurturing of their mates. So, you need to select well. That is always the key.
Women and men each have feral ways and they are each ultimately responsible for keeping them in check. But, we live in an age where women are not expected to do so, while men are very much expected to do so. So, you need to select for a woman who has not damaged herself too much by her own indulgence, and who has the capacity to be reined in, as she has the capacity to nurture your own efforts at reining yourself in.
Slumlord:
“Now the reason why women may not be sexually attracted to their husbands may be due to innate factors such as fatigue, anxiety and illness. However, if these are not the issue, the reason why the wife may be sexually unresponsive to her husband is because he is sexually unattractive. I know this may be a hard task for some of the commentators here to grasp, but perhaps, just perhaps, the wife is ok and the fault lays with the husband. Perhaps the husband has absolutely no charisma, has an external locus of control, cannot make a decision, is lazy, is not houseproud, can’t keep a job down, lacks any ambition or is too needy. The list can go on.”
All true. But consider this:
Another reason why the wife may be sexually unresponsive to her husband is because she married her husband for the wrong reasons, was never sexually attracted to him or was only minimally attracted to him; has daddy issues, and/or was a slut, has no idea how to relate to men other than sexually, and deeply distrusts all men. Perhaps the wife is pining away for a superalpha lover in her past, has more baggage than a department store, is still dealing with her unresolved daddy issues; or is just a demanding, unreasonable, ungrateful woman.
Our Common Sense Marriages.
@ deti – That’s fine, as long as W can put her past behind her and never let it affect her marriage. The problem is that many times, she can’t or won’t put it behind her. She’s pining away for her superalpha. She compares her husband unfavorably to her past lovers. It inevitably comes out; and it has to be dealt with then, months or years into a marriage that the wife is miserable in because she married a man she’s not attracted to and doesn’t love. This is why we have “I’m not haaaaaappy” divorces. W is unhappy, she doesn’t love her husband, and she doesn’t know why. MOst of the time — it’s because she married a man she isn’t attracted to, is no longer attracted to; or no longer is attracted to; and she’s reconnected with F*ckbuddy Rockbanddrummer on Face book.
The solution is not for the wife to discuss the intimate details of her past sex life with her husband. She might need to speak to some kind of therapist about how exorcise the ghost of rockbanddrummer and the husband probably needs to increase his attractiveness. I don’t think that saying “I used to blow him” is helpful to H and it is probably hurtful.
Liberty, Family, and Masculinity – This blog is really helping me, but I have to point out something I see as an inconstancy.
Blue pill: Women are not reasonable for their actions because men are not treating them good enough.
Red pill: Women are not responsible for their actions because men are not holding them accountable.
Both are giving women a free ride and saying that they are not responsible for their actions.
Close, but not quite, It’s more like –
Blue pill: Women are not responsible for their actions because men are not treating them like angels in human form who can do no wrong.
Red pill: Women are not responsible for their actions because they are not held accountable by blue pill men, who vastly outnumber us.
There just aren’t enough red pill guys to make a difference.
…yet.
Novaseeker wrote:
I agree with this. These impulses (hypergamy, fitness testing, etc) are innate and difficult (but not impossible if she has some insight) for women to control, which is why having women marry young right out of their fathers’ homes worked well. Unfortunately, that is too politically incorrect for 99% of Christians to accept at present.
@Slumlord: “Game recognises in order to trigger a woman’s sexual response a man needs to possess sexual characteristics which will make the woman horny. Lack of these characteristics means nothing is going to happen–even in a biblical marriage. Sure a pious woman may lay down and let her husband have his “conjugal rights” but if you want your woman to want you, you’ve got to have the sexual goods.”
Women do not act solely in response to stimuli, so this is an insufficient description. (In fact, it makes women as non-responsible for their treachery as does feminism, just for a different reason.) A woman also has a will, and she is capable of doing the right thing — i.e., keeping her marriage vows — because she chooses to and not merely because she can’t control herself in response to her husband’s “sexual goods.” Conversely, some wives withhold sex even from husbands with “the sexual goods” because that’s what they choose to do. Scripture’s exhortations to wives aren’t conditioned on whether their husbands have adequate game or not.
Thank you, as always, to Dalrock for writing wonderful articles and hosting outstanding conversations. As to the folk who accused Dalrock’s blog of not being “Christian enough” let me say it is in large part due to exposure to Dalrock et al that I am, myself, converting (or, perhaps more rightly, rediscovering) to Christianity. So, again, thank you!
I also want to thank Sherlock for his magnificent essay. After reading it, I had to just sit back and say, “Wow.” I want to disseminate that, widely. Who’s up for passing out flyers, eh? 😛 It describes so much, so concisely, and with such beauty and understanding….
My final comment is to address the subject of bitterness in the manosphere. I have to say I very much agree with others who have suggested that bitter blue pill man will become a bitter red pill man. But I must also point out, as one or two others have, that Dalrock’s is one of the few manosphere sites that I have seen that takes the tack of offering hope and inspiration with this knowledge. There is a lot of nihilism on behalf of the PUAs, and the MGTOW seems to vary a great deal from the bitter man throwing up his hands and saying “Fuck it!” to the man that takes everything in and makes the rational choice to live for himself, and to enjoy life on his own terms.
I mostly only follow the comments here and at SSM’s place. Occasionally I read those at Rational Male. The difference is marked. And even though Rollo generally espouses a pretty even-keel outlook and seems to post according to the philosophy of “This is simply how it is, and there’s no moral judgement to be made against the nature, only the actions,” the posters there seem to be much more bitter (taken as a wide generality) than here and at SSM’s. I don’t even read comments at The Spearhead (let alone PUA dens like CH) because most of the dialogue seems to, well, take it personally, if that makes sense.
In other words, the attitude here is largely (like Rollo) simply putting the truth out and dealing with it, and a lot of people here recognize that, while women may be (generally are) abusing the system, this is not done in a purposeful or spiteful nature, and, in fact, many times these women have no idea what they are actually doing. There is a sense of grace. On the other hand, in the broader manosphere (not all, but significant portions) a lot of people do seem to take it personally, and characterize women as evil, conniving, cruel, and so on. But there is a difference between being evil and simply acting based on your unrestricted animal impulses, or so I would argue (I recognize this is not an absolute, and I can do little to justify this point – it could EASILY be rationalization, and I am open to being illuminated on this point).
I do get the case for anger, for frustration and depression, and I absolutely sympathize with the men in this situation. I get the reason for bitterness, and the need for frank discussion. But at the same time, in some commenters I see a strong sense of attempting to work through the issues and deal with the problems and come out on the other side better, and in other commenters I see a sense of futility and resentment – they are bitter and they don’t WANT to give up their anger. I can name some examples upon request, but as I am a woman (^-~) I don’t want to needlessly start riling people up or putting people in a position that they feel they have to defend themselves…
@peoplegrowing
“this is not done in a purposeful or spiteful nature”
Only a woman would say something like that … batting for teamwoman even though you KNOW the whole divorce & child snatching industries like the CPS, are deliberately designed for women to exploit
You can call men bitter all you want
The fact is … faced with the extreme human rights violations, men are rightfully outraged & right to vent & direct their attention to the inhumane evil they are facing today
Yes the court system is INHUMANE & EVIL, calling men bitter & resentful is a slap in the face for all the crap men & boys are facing today
So anger & rage at 10 yr old boys being drugged & then mentally abused at the hands of feminist teachers, is simply men being bitter & resentful is it?
So having the house YOUVE worked for over 10 years, stolen from you & then having your WAGES STOLEN from you for the next ten years, is men being bitter & resentful?
Men are facing some of the WORST human rights violations in history, & women like peoplegrowing STILL spout idiotic shit like this … ???
“while women may be (generally are) abusing the system, …. many times these women have no idea what they are actually doing. ”
So stealing a mans house, & his wages for the next 10 years, AND detonating your family, is what exactly?
So its NOT a premediated act, requiring EXTENSIVE consultations with expensive lawyers & MONTHS OF planning & research to extract as much land & strip the man of everything that is rightfully his ?
Seriously with idiotic comments like yours peoplegrowing, your proving how FERAL & primitive women like YOU really are …
“When a woman can divorce for simply being unhappy, proves how feral & primitive women really are.
Destroying your family & children for an emotion, it doesnt get more primitive or feral …” -Rmaxd
I never thought I’d see the day when someone made feminine conditional love into a virtue, as well as the idea of “taming” a man by making him more empathetic, re: Sherlock.
Arguably, it’s the fault of the church for allowing men to believe that real women could ever be our personal Virgin Marys (who despite the name so happens to be good in bed for her man and maybe even be up for a threesome with her “bestie”), but if we’re to believe in equality, does that also mean denying the women the conceit inherent in having a feminine “pride of place,” which also involves sitting in judgment over male worth?
I mean, I notice that here…you guys talk a good game about keeping women in their place (lol), but at the same time it allows women to feel some sort of pride and silly shrewdness in her dealings with men.
Whatever happened to pride being a sin? ALL pride.
I am NOT calling men bitter, leastways, not all of them. I DO think there are some out there that want to wallow in their victim status as much as any woman.
So stealing a mans house, & his wages for the next 10 years, AND detonating your family, is what exactly?
I made and make no excuse from this, apart from the fact that it is women acting on behalf of their unrestricted animal impulses – which you yourself blamed. I don’t see how we are in disagreement.
I made my point ONLY to say that, while it is not true the manosphere in entirely bitter (and the Christian wing less so than any other sector), it certainly does exist and so I can see where that claim comes from. There is a DIFFERENCE between anger, rage, righteousness, which all make sense and are more than warranted, and bitterness which, while not unwarranted, tends to represent a very different viewpoint, and general attitude. In short, a person may be righteously angry and still able to find joy, where bitterness poisons the soul against true joy.
For what it’s worth, posters like Deti, Dalrock, and Empath all strike me as very much angry, dedicated to the cause, frustrated with the system and the culture that spawned it… but not bitter. Neither does Rollo EVER come as bitter. Even what I’ve read of CH (I don’t frequent his site much because I’m not looking to pick up chicks) comes off as resigned, mostly enjoying the decadence – once in a while there’s a hint that he wishes things were different, but neither is he bitter (although that could be because in a big way, the system ‘works’ for him).
You seem to have purposely taken my statement out of my very careful equivocation and applied it as a broad-based slander, which I never intended or meant. I didn’t call “men” bitter, I said some commenters at a few sites, which I generalized by faction as I understood them.
For what it’s worth, I agree that the system is evil, and is designed to encourage evil, but the women involved are “willing idiots” who are behaving FERALLY, but generally with no notion of how very bad what they are doing is. They have been lied to and are completely delusional about what they are doing. This in no way excuses the behavior, and, indeed, some women are calculating, but, in general, they are simply using the tools they have been giving, the same as many PUA use the tools they are given (Game, dark triad), with NO concern for morality. Unfortunately, society gives women cover and excuses and incentives do so, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is, generally, simple base nature rather than an active vendetta.
Addendum … why the hell would men want to give up their anger? ,,, Do you see the feminists or women like peoplegrowing giving up their right to divorce & destroy a man anytime she wants?
This isnt some day at the hair salon, you women feed each other all day long
This isnt some new age tampon advert you women are fed all day long …
This is REAL LIFE with REAL CONSEQUENCES for millions of men, a concept you women arent familiar with …
FYI, wait till the concepts the manosphere teaches, trickle down to the poor & lower classes
People dont riot at economic reality, or substandard living … otherwise the poor & lower classes wouldve rioted centuries ago …
They riot when the TRUTH interferes with the hum of their tv sets, & the drugs & alchohol they take to cover up the pain of how poor they really are …
Anger IS always the right course of action, when everything around you is evil & wrong …
This is WHY the men of MRA & the manosphere are angry & RIGHTFULLY so
Nothing surprises me from women any more. It does not seem strange to see a woman enjoying a life with laws of misandry speaking about the sad bitterness of some men.
@peopelgrow
“ho are behaving FERALLY, but generally with no notion of how very bad what they are doing is. ”
Absolute BS … did you even read what it takes to divorce & destroy your family?
Women maybe feral, but they ABSOLUTELY know the evil they’re DELIBERATELY creating
Divorce, false rape, false dv, are all PREMEDITATED … destroying a family is NEVER done out of ignorance
Seriously why do you have this insane & ridiculously pointless need to cover up for womens evils?
Another reason why the wife may be sexually unresponsive to her husband is because she married her husband for the wrong reasons, was never sexually attracted to him or was only minimally attracted to him;
You know there was a time in the not so distant past that marrying a man that you weren’t head over heels in love with because you needed financial support and wanted to have children was considered a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
I like how she says women are just feral idiots. They voted for that shit. They had some female congressmen openly speak out against paternity testing as something against women. I also dig the comparision of the laws of misandry as used in family law to the PUA as equals in bad feral behavior. ( bitch, feral male behavior is supplicating to women we have to teach and train men to go against their natural tendencies to be a PUA)
@Cane Caldo
Screaming profanities at me about my bad theology
that’s rich.
James 1:26 – If any man among you seems to be religious, and bridles not his tongue, but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.
From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/
bit·ter (btr)
adj. bit·ter·er, bit·ter·est
1. Having or being a taste that is sharp, acrid, and unpleasant.
2. Causing a sharply unpleasant, painful, or stinging sensation; harsh: enveloped in bitter cold; a bitter wind.
3. Difficult or distasteful to accept, admit, or bear: the bitter truth; bitter sorrow.
4. Proceeding from or exhibiting strong animosity: a bitter struggle; bitter foes.
5. Resulting from or expressive of severe grief, anguish, or disappointment: cried bitter tears.
6. Marked by resentment or cynicism: “He was already a bitter elderly man with a gray face” (John Dos Passos).
an·ger (nggr)
n.
A strong feeling of displeasure or hostility.
v. an·gered, an·ger·ing, an·gers
v.tr.
To make angry; enrage or provoke.
v.intr.
To become angry: She angers too quickly.
[Middle English, from Old Norse angr, sorrow; see angh- in Indo-European roots.]
Synonyms: anger, rage, fury, ire, wrath, resentment, indignation
These nouns denote varying degrees of marked displeasure. Anger, the most general, is strong displeasure: vented my anger by denouncing the supporters of the idea.
Rage and fury imply intense, explosive, often destructive emotion: smashed the glass in a fit of rage; directed his fury at the murderer.
Ire is a term for anger most frequently encountered in literature: “The best way to escape His ire/Is, not to seem too happy” (Robert Browning).
Wrath applies especially to anger that seeks vengeance or punishment: saw the flood as a sign of the wrath of God.
Resentment refers to indignant smoldering anger generated by a sense of grievance: deep resentment that led to a strike.
Indignation is righteous anger at something wrongful, unjust, or evil: “public indignation about takeovers causing people to lose their jobs” (Allan Sloan).
There are differences between anger, wrath and indignation as compared with bitterness and resentment. Anger, wrath and indignation can all be felt and expressed as appropriate and healthy. They can exist without bitterness and resentment. Bitterness and resentment, however, while not neccessarily unjustified, are unhealthy and stunting.
Again, I have never said that men are wrong to feel this way, and I have also proclaimed several times that I think they are absolutely right to be angry. I am just saying that to say there is no bitterness in the manosphere is putting on blinders.
Dalrock’s original post says,
In reality unless you are consumed by bitterness the object of calling out bad behavior should be at least in part for the benefit of those you are correcting.
Which seems to imply that all of the men in the manosphere only seek to correct female behavior. However, this is not every man’s goal, and there are comments, especially that I have seen on Spearhead, from men running to the effect of “I can’t wait till the wimminz get what’s coming to them! I can’t wait for the economic/political collapse!” This attitude is retributive, not instructional, and is motivated not by righteous anger but bitterness. They are justified in their anger, but they have let it get the best of them.
You know there was a time in the not so distant past that marrying a man that you weren’t head over heels in love with because you needed financial support and wanted to have children was considered a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
T
it still is a perfectly reasonable thing what is unreasonable is the lack of honoring your end of the deal. All of this talk about being in love and shit is a work around the current laws of misandry due to the fact there is no social or legal consequence for a woman behaving with out honor. Infact the last few months have seen articles about how the churchian church and churchian female bloggers encourage women to show no honor to wedding vows.
Dalrock is being a smart man and a cultural leader he is showing you and all women a way to peace and safety when the bottom drops out.
T says:
You know there was a time in the not so distant past that marrying a man that you weren’t head over heels in love with because you needed financial support and wanted to have children was considered a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
There is nothing particularly wrong with that. What is wrong is that the man is held to his part of that bargain and the woman may demolish the bargain whenever her emotions dictate. It was also generally understood that she wouldn’t spend 10-15 years whoring around and show up at his doorstep when she could no longer attract the men she wanted to play with. That woman arrives with a massive baggage train that the man is supposed to deal with without complaint.
Women want the same bargain when the conditions have changed, and they are unwilling to live up to that same bargain.
That is unreasonable.
Absolute BS … did you even read what it takes to divorce & destroy your family?
I have not, but the manosphere has made it sound easy, and much has been made of women’s incentives to do so.
Seriously why do you have this insane & ridiculously pointless need to cover up for womens evils?
This is the crux of it. I subscribe to the belief that, when ignorance or malice both equally explain a situation, usually ignorance is what is at work.
Dalrock also said,
This really surprised me at the time, because understanding women better has only increased my empathy for them. This is true dispite my continued willingess to call out bad behavior by women.
By this, I think it is reasonable to suggest that he also believes women are not EVIL, but FALLEN. One does not empathize with evil, but they do instruct the foolish who are willing to take counsel.
I also dig the comparision of the laws of misandry as used in family law to the PUA as equals in bad feral behavior. ( bitch, feral male behavior is supplicating to women we have to teach and train men to go against their natural tendencies to be a PUA)
As to this, we would not have to “teach” men to be alpha if it weren’t for the feminizing influence of society. It has been thoroughly established in the manosphere and is a significant meme that western civ feminizes the majority of men, and that much of what it means to become a PUA and have Game is to RECLAIM NATURAL MASCULINITY. Feral male behavior is to have sex with as much as he can get, using whatever strategy he can. Feral female behavior is to consolidate as many/the best resources as she can by any strategy she can. Just as males may mix beta and alpha traits as comes more naturally in an ATTEMPT to garner pussy, so may females chase alpha fucks and beta bucks and whatever the system provides in her own attempt to get the best resources – genetic and material.
This attitude is retributive, not instructional, and is motivated not by righteous anger but bitterness. They are justified in their anger, but they have let it get the best of them.
This is very healthy and good for men to feel that way and to speak it out loud. The sad thing is peoplegrowing you are not the one that is going to pay or get your retribution. You daughters and grand daughters will. Believe it or not that indifference and bitter put into practice is the only thing that will change and motivate feral women to civilized behavior. Supplicating love will never make a woman as kind and empathetic as fear. As soon as men that feel that way act on it and make it a terrifying reality you will be amazed at how healthy and strong marriage gets. It may be coming sooner than you think.(go to any sporting godss store or walmart and try and one box of ammunition or just observe the empty shelves.)
Let me make it real simple:
Righteous anger and the wrath that accompanies it is one thing. Nothing wrong with it in a legitimate cause.
But hatred, bitterness and resentment are something else entirely: they will eat a man alive if he does not figure out how to set them down and get himself a life outside of them.
Sure, be angry, continue to express that anger as Dalrock does. But does anyone think Dalrock carries bitterness and resentment with him? I tell people about the misandric family laws among other things, often with anger in my voice, often with empathy for my fallen friends, but I no longer have room in my heart for hatred or bitterness. I had to set that aside, accept the red pill reality for what it is and take responsibility and be accountable to the man in the mirror for how I was going to deal with it if I was going to get anywhere in my life. Hanging on to that resentment was not good for me, and is really not good for any man to carry with him the rest of his life.
The truth can set a man free…. but only if he lets it. It’s not guaranteed to be a good truth, let alone a happy truth, but it’s implied in the Bible that knowing it is far better than not. Samson’s failure to overcome the bitterness, resentment and hatred has made him less of a man. It should serve as an object lesson for the rest of us as we counsel one another as men.
Random Angeleno comment is an ideal and a way to live in misandry. It will not end misandry but that is ok some men in the manosphere have the purpose of helping men survive. Other men have as a purpose to give incentive to remove the laws of misandry in her own selfish interest.
Random Angeleno says:
But hatred, bitterness and resentment are something else entirely: they will eat a man alive if he does not figure out how to set them down and get himself a life outside of them.
It goes farther than that. Given the laws that currently exist, and given the prevailing attitude in churches and among women how does a man who just wants a family proceed? How do you trust someone who has a history with men who are nothing like you, shows up at your doorstep with her eyes on your wallet, and tells you that she is ready to settle now and you’ve been selected?
She can detonate the deal at any point and you get to foot the bill for her misbehavior. What kind of an idiot would accept such a bargain? Why wouldn’t he be bitter at a society that lied to him for years, and attacks him at every opportunity for not being man enough to take such a ridiculous deal?
The sad thing is peoplegrowing you are not the one that is going to pay or get your retribution. You daughters and grand daughters will. Believe it or not that indifference and bitter put into practice is the only thing that will change and motivate feral women to civilized behavior.
I do believe it, and, as others have astutely pointed out elsewhere, it is for this reason women in general, especially feminists, and including myself, fear this bitterness. Make no mistake, it was never my intent to shame it out. I do see why it exists, and I can make no excuses for the state of the average woman. Neither was it my intention to justify their behavior. My only intention from the start was just to say, right or wrong, it does exist. I fear I must have obscured that point, but that was all I was trying to say.
I do think it WILL take an utter collapse for men and women both to return to their natural roles, and that there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the women. I wish there was another way, but I fear it is unlikely. Still, there are those of the manosphere like Dalrock who speak instruction that such a thing might be averted, or lessened, or at least some few will be prepared, and there are those who simply cackle with glee at the idea that chaos is inevitable. That doesn’t invalidate their viewpoints or magically make them lose all reason, it just means they have a notably different attitude, and to say they don’t, or that such people don’t exist, is just ignoring reality.
Thanks Deti. 🙂
you write, “Let’s get to the nub of this. Samson thinks men in the manosphere are overly fascinated with oral sex. Samson also apparently thinks there’s a fixation on anal sex. This is ridiculous. The only one who talks about anal sex is GBFM and it’s done in a tongue firmly in cheek manner. “Buttthexing”. LOL. All I noted was that many men like it when their wives fellate them; and that if more wives did, it would go a long, long way toward solving marital issues.”
yes–my tongue firmly in my mouth cheek, not my buttcheekz lzozozozozozozo
it always cracks me up when people say that gbfm has an anal fixation. they are shooting the messenger.
what i am remarking on is the butthextual canary in the coal mine. tukker maxx rhymes with goldman sax publishes a book where he tells tsories of sodomizing women and taping it secretly, and the head editor (a woman) at simon and schuster gives him a $300,000 advance for his next book, while he also gets $10,000,000 (of fiat dollars) to make a film on his first book which epic fails, losing around $8,000,000 or so. add it all up, and his far art has lost more than it has made, and yet, the weekly standard (a supposedly conservative rag) repeats his lies about his height and succeth, selling him as a six-foot-tall butthextual hero.
the amazing thing is that this bothers almost nobody in the “christian” manosphere who instead spend all their time splitting hairs, fiddling as the culture burns, attacking dalrock and heartiste for simply pointing out truths of the decline paralleling our butthextual canary in the coal mine.
heartiste oft lampoons the injustices and idiociy, while dalrock presents logic, reason, and statistics exposing it, although they both approach it in numerous ways. what makes them attractive is the strong presence of a manly, logical, humorous, fair, and just soul. their codes of honor are more similar than different, and both are manly. because of this, dalrock would not be welcome in many churches, just as heartiste would be unwelcome in numerous DC social circles, but then, that is what makes them men–valuing truth, justice, logic, and reason over superficial societal prejudices.
what the folks who spend their time attacking dalrock and heartiste need to do is look beyond these bold bloggers speaking truth to power, and perhaps consider joining them in directing their righteous anger towards those who are buttocking future wives and deosuling them and tapiong it in secrete and publsihing and profiting off it, and all those women at simon and schuster and teh weekly standard who support, enable, and further the moral decline we all have to deal with now.
dalrock and heartiste stand head and shoulders above the rest in their respective realms, but one should not be jealous of the beatles at a beatles concert–just sit back, relax, and enjoy the show. 😉
Angeleno has said what I have been trying to say, and with far more eloquence. Thank you.
Given the laws that currently exist, and given the prevailing attitude in churches and among women how does a man who just wants a family proceed? How do you trust someone who has a history with men who are nothing like you, shows up at your doorstep with her eyes on your wallet, and tells you that she is ready to settle now and you’ve been selected?
You don’t trust such a woman. You use Dalrock’s interview for a prospective wife to carefully vet any contenders; you don’t just take up the first woman who shows up. If you are convinced there are no such women in the States (or if you feel they are so vanishingly rare that you will never meet one) then you can expat as others have. If you don’t expat, then you have to accept the risks in faith, vet your woman very carefully, then leave it to God. There is still risk, even with the most vetted woman, but at that point, you must have faith, and know that her sin is her own, and perhaps you become a modern day martyr. It’s not a GOOD answer or a good system, but I do believe that’s the long and short of it. You may add in pre-nups, or adopt with no spouse if you are more focused on parenting than marrying, but outside of religious faith, there’s no reason for a man to marry, and assuming religious faith, well…. You must have faith.
@Peoplegrowing
Just to clarify, I wasn’t claiming this is the position of all men in the manosphere. This is my assertion of what should be part of the intent of calling out bad behavior.
@peoplegrowing on February 3, 2013 at 9:21 pm —
For what it’s worth, I agree that the system is evil, and is designed to encourage evil, but the women involved are “willing idiots” who are behaving FERALLY, but generally with no notion of how very bad what they are doing is.
Let’s be careful (or specific) here.
Women who are “Christian” have no business having any form of experience with a penis, or semen, or being penetrated in any orifice whatsoever, outside of marriage.
This is quite clear in scripture as well as the (now-hated-and-the-object-of-attempts-to-suppress-and-sweep-it-away Western tradition); not to mention all the evo-psych. (It’s funny, isn’t it, and indicative of the female imperative, that the fact that hypergamy is explained by evo-psych is used to justify surrendering to it; while the corresponding male instinct is swept under the rug as “oh noes, the male sexuality, it burns!”)
And yet, how many times do we see exhortations to young men to marry single mothers?
Why are the elders of these churches, or even more so, the older wives of these churches, not shaming the young women? Why is the blame for the pregnancies laid at the feet of men alone?
(Note the “virgin birth” shaming technique applied to men — as far as the woman’s role in pregnancy, they were all virgins, and it “just happened” — whereas for the men involved, they used cosmic mind-meld rays to hypnotize the women into not noticing ANY of the steps of conversation, attraction, arousal, isolation, or pretty much anything until either a) their period is mysteriously, magically late or b) it’s time for the “rally round team woman” unwed baby shower.
Also note that the loose women within the church have no difficulty issuing nuclear rejections to the men in the congregation, so we know there is no physiological barrier to their mouth forming the syllable “NO,” nor is there a disorder in their hip and leg joints which prevent them from closing their knees. It’s almost as though the women are cheered for acting out Oscar Wilde’s quip, “I can resist anything except temptation.” But it’s postively CRIMETHINK to point this out.)
Why don’t the churches demand that the, ahem, ladies, “WOMAN UP” and marry a boring man?
“To avoid temptation, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.” — note that the men in the pews are not the ones getting knocked up, nor are they doing the knocking up: they can’t even get to the on-deck circle, let alone score!
So much for the Churchians. Then we have the secular crowd. Of COURSE they know how bad what they are doing is, or they wouldn’t be going so ape-shit crazy trying to justify it. Just try walking up to a man with a cubicle job, and ask him if he has paid all of his taxes. He won’t go ape-shit attacking you, saying taxes are the barbaric remnant of a matriarchical system designed to oppress men, and how dare you — even if, after taking the red pill, he now knows this to be the case. Why? Because there is the cultural memory of a legitimate purpose and role for taxes — but there never has been such a purpose for a woman being a slut. So why aren’t there “Tax Walks” the way there are “Slut Walks” to justify the horrible reputation of white male heterosexuals (being the ones having sex with the sluts in question) paying taxes?
Nice try, though.
Thanks for the kind words GBFM.
I have to admit it is always kind of eerie when you drop the persona though.
grey_whiskers:
I have no argument for this, really. You are exactly right insofar as the church is preaching at men and cheering at women. However, I don’t see secularists working too hard at “justifying” anymore – after all, with no fault divorce they need not justify themselves, there are truly disgusting “Abortion on demand, no apologies” campaigns that make no excuses, and while women still tend to, shall we say, “round down” their N counts (disqualifying based on any number of flimsy criteria) even this tendency seems to be eroding as women gleefully share stories of their carousel riding (generally only “rounding” when they get close to the wall – and this could be them still not thinking they did anything “wrong” but knowing they would get no man’s time if they told the sloppy truth). Still, that’s beside the point, and not really relevant.
But in both the church and the secular world, the system is encouraging and reinforcing women’s feral behavior. As you say, the Church is not telling women to WOMAN UP (as it should) but is instead focused on trapping men into supplicating less-than-betas. There are women in the system making it this way, but there are men in it too, reinforcing the feminine imperative. And most women are hearing these messages of their own superiority from the Church and the world at large, and they BELIEVE it. And that’s what makes it all so dangerous. Many of these women honestly think, in their super twisted, corrupt, perverted world view, that what feels good IS good, because this is what they have been taught by EVERYONE, including the church. They have never been told to grow up, and so they behave like children, with no concern or empathy for others, and, in fact, told that divorcing their husband because he makes them “unhaaaaaappy” IS best for the kids because “if mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.” Nevermind that this is patently untrue. This is what they have been told, and this is what they believe.
*As regards Hypergamy and female nature, when I first started reading about it on RM, I was terrified I would succumb and that there was nothing to do. Then I smacked myself upside the head and went, “DUH! Now that I know about this, instead of letting it sneak up on me and succumbing to it, I can actively take steps to prevent my animal nature from getting the best of me!” I know this is not how every woman reacts, but I am trying to use the knowledge to better myself, and avoid falling into such a trap. As men have proven, we are capable of more than our base natures.
@Solomon
Screaming profanities at me about my bad theology
that’s rich.
James 1:26 – If any man among you seems to be religious, and bridles not his tongue, but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.
My shout of profanity was intended to snap you out of your stupor. It was chosen, not slipped past. It had nothing to do with your bad theology. I think you know this because I was clear. It suits your purposes to act like the victim when the truth is that I did you no harm, and yet you lashed out at me. Twice. I suspect you’re desperate to settle an old score; the details of which I have no recollection except you were mad at me. I further suspect that you did a quick bit of Googling to find that verse. The reason I suspect this is because you have missed the heart of its meaning. It’s not about profanity.
Nevertheless, if my use of a bad word caused you to stumble: I apologize.
(repost w/ blockquote fixed this time)
@peoplegrowing
Certainly a particular man who ups his game enough to become the target of hypergamous desire, it’s possible to have a choice among wives.
But these obvious problems exist:
1. Not all men can do this. They are, after all, betas. With no constraints on female behavior, they’re all running feral. They don’t want betas until they hit the wall. The betas have no meaningful choice of women. The idea that the average beta can vet a bunch of contending wives is almost ludicrous to anyone who has actually been an average beta. The “alpha up” meme from the manosphere can work for a specific beta, but it’s no society level fix.
2. Once a man reaches this level of game, what incentive does he even have to marry up? It’s likely to be the case he prefer keeping his cock on the carousel of desired cocks, and just maintaining a soft harem.
3. The current milieu selects against women who have the wife qualities that Dalrock calls out in that post. While they do exist, the numbers are small. And the ones that exist are largely on the “wishing carousel” and not looking for a beta.
To be a man worthy of catching the girl that Dalrock is alluding to in this milieu, he needs a lot of experience with women. That means seducing them and banging them. The process of doing that is how men get to the point of giving off the “worthy man” vibe. In the process of doing that, the pumped & dumped women are actually less suitable for marriage by virtue of having more sexual experience.
Standard gravity, or standard acceleration due to free fall, usually denoted by g0 or gn, is the nominal gravitational acceleration of an object in a vacuum near the surface of the Earth. It is defined as precisely 9.80665 m/s2, or about 35.30394 (km/h)/s (≈32.174 ft/s2 or ≈21.937 mph/s). This value was established by the 3rd CGPM (1901, CR 70) and used to define the standard weight of an object as the product of its mass and this nominal acceleration.
Ignore it at your peril and employ it to your benefit.
@Greenlander
My apologies, I over-simplified. The theoretical assumed an unfit prospect, but a prospect nonetheless. It was from this assumption (the assumption that there is SOME prospect; not necessarily a number or a good one) that I based my response off of.
However, as to number 2, I did address that the only reason for a man to marry was if he had religious inclination to do so. If he doesn’t, then by all means, the rational response is to become one of those cocks on the carousel. And as to 3, I did address that as well (expatting, in the belief that such a woman was so vanishingly rare as to be impossible to find in the current milieu).
As for this:
The “alpha up” meme from the manosphere can work for a specific beta, but it’s no society level fix.
I will say that I think the odds of it working on a society-wide level are so unlikely as to make it not worth counting on, buuuuut, it has been discussed in the past that if enough men go red pill (whether they choose to pump-n-dump, ex-pat, MGTOW, or marry only very carefully with a wife who agrees to a 1.0 kind of marriage), it COULD effect a society-wide change. It would, at least, be nice if that were the case instead of collapse…. IF enough men were on board (and there are some signs that young men these days are seeing the truth about women and wanting none of this marriage business, but just pick ups), IF enough men aren’t buying what women are selling… then it could force a shift in women’s behavior… Unlikely, I know, but here’s dreaming….
“For what it’s worth, I agree that the system is evil, and is designed to encourage evil, but the women involved are “willing idiots” who are behaving FERALLY, but generally with no notion of how very bad what they are doing is.”
unfortunately, my observations and experiences have usually been the opposite — in most cases, when females have done really malevolent things, they usually have taken much satisfaction in the doing of the evil, and also pleasure in the infliction of pain and powerlessness on their (typically male) victims
often, i’ve seen women ruin a guy just for the satisfaction of it, without even a tangible/material reward, beyond the thrill of spite or vengeance. . . or sometimes, mere convenience
it was a part of female nature i had a lot of trouble believing and accepting, and something my nation and churches and pastors left me absolutely unprepared for
heck in america, entire teevee shows are given over to cheering the castration or misfortune of some male, simply for his maleness, with wildly applauding female audiences, and millions of viewers
they know EXACTLY what they are doing, and they enjoy it, too — and so do most females in the west who have been getting away with murder
go to any criminal courtroom in the u.s, sit there for a week, and watch what happens . . . i’m not making some abstract argument here
i’ve seen the smug smiles of women for forty years after they have accomplished iniquity after iniquity, they were pleased and proud of themselves . . . and often, so were the men who aided them, for profit or otherwise
dont tell me they didnt know what they were doing; i looked into their faces
of all the red pill schoolings, the willfulness and consciousness of these women has been the harshest lesson
Pingback: BD #3 – When You’re Crowned King Nothing | The Society of Phineas
The tipping point of all of the different survival techniques red pill men use to survvie misandry will hopefully be reached before a blue pill collapse. Either will be fine with me because it needs to happen. PUA,MGTOW, expatter’s, surrogate fatherhood, homoexuality, peterpan(grasseaters) , red pill christians with game that live by “no rings for sluts”, and the good old fashion alphas and thugs will all contribute to maybe change society with out blood.
One safe weapon would be a male birth control pill. Involuntary childless spinsterhood being the goal. Get about 20 to 30 percent of women into their 40’s single and childless with no hope of ever having a child. Yeah they will have good careers paying 35 to 120k a year (won’t be enough) with only chance at a relationship being a booty call. Working full time no help other than work place laws of misandry paying full taxes with no deductions. Fulling task with all from maintaining the home from lawn care to wiring, to fully alone to make sure the car is running. (the stories from car dealers and mechanics with female customers are great). The older you get the more permanent it gets. No grand kids for thanksgiving hell no kids period, no christmas shopping for the little ones and no smiles or breathless giggles to see or hear. And best of all no content inner peace her mind will forever be tormented with hypergamy and herd status and hate towards men, society,women, and envy and contempt for married mothers of happy children (minority of women) And all the while a pleasent smile empathy and kindness of appreciation of an honest beta would spare her and allow god to bless her with inner peace from a kool-aid smile from her grandson looking up at her. The feminine imperative will have none of that. So we have laws of misandry, the highest prison population in the world, suicide problems, a churchian church that worships the heroic single mom, and every year we have more and more kids living in fatherless homes with all of the negative stats that come with it, and an arms race with people buying up everything in sight.
greenlander says:
February 4, 2013 at 12:13 am
That comment was spot on and very realistic. sometimes you all here can be as hard as rock.
@T on February 3, 2013 at 3:37 pm, @deti
As I said above — the issue is not so much sex practices, but the condition of wives’ hearts. Why do they refuse their husbands when they eagerly participated with premarital paramours? This is a wholly legitimate question, and it’s one that needs answering. And it is one for which women must be held accountable.
Anyway I don’t want to derail this conversation, but it seems like the women who’ve had sex with men other than their husbands could save their husbands a lot of grief if they just kept their mouths shut about what they put in their mouths and other orfices before they married.
Epic FAIL on your part. “What is more important, the gold on the altar or the altar which makes it holy?”
The women could have saved EVERYONE a lot of grief if they’d just kept their mouths shut and not sucked off ANYONE until their husband,*after* marrying him.
You know, some women figure “I’m going to marry him, so I might as well…” and then the couple ends up splitting up. Her n-count goes up by one: but more importantly, she has experience.
Despite what women think about “travel” (wink, nudge), women do bond emotionally to men during sex emotionally. The more often you do it, the less special it becomes; not to mention, the woman is imprinting sexually upon the lover: bringing expectations of “the right way” or “oh, *I* know how men want it, because that’s what ____ wanted.” (or, ____, ____, ___-___, and especially ___!)
The guy who has been an incel (at great personal cost), is expecting that his sexuality will enthrall his wife, because, that that’s how he feels, and it’s *his* first time. So it’s not insecurity: it’s anger that what he was promised, is not only taken away, but at the same time, he’s saddled with baggage, f*ck-phantoms (and/or s*ck-phantoms), and having to realize that the delighted squeals of feminine discovery, and the joy of having your mate imprint sexually with YOU, were given to someone else: not only without commitment, but even without love.
And he should just “man up and take it”, because shut up.
(What, do you think that the woman’s respect for her husband is *increased* by the fact that she’s successfully lied to him about *that*? Or that the respect is increased by knowing that most of the other women in the church also know that she lied, and helped her get away with it?
Do you think she won’t be emboldened to cheat? Think of the classic line of a stepchild when the new husband tries to discipline her: “You’re not my father!” Same thing applies here, internally: “You’re not my first love!” and the internal aside, “I may have married you, but in my heart, I don’t belong to you.”)
So no, the problem won’t be solved by women being allowed to be whores, then lying about it.
Nice try though.
@slumlord on February 3, 2013 at 4:53 pm —
Love and sex are two separate things. In fact, their expression is modulated by two separate neural circuits.
Right, which is why when people fall in love, they go around announcing their intentions to celibate each other’s brains out.
The idea that sex is the end point of love is a romantic idea. It is not based upon any finding of biological reality. The fact of the matter is that women can experience deep affection for their husbands despite have no sexual desire for them.
Preaching to the choir here, slummy. Surf on over to Athol Kay’s place (or lots of places in the manosphere) to hear the discussion of “I love you, but I’m not in love with you” and the accompanying discussion of dopamine, oxytocin, and all the rest.
The problem is not which neural circuit, or which set of brain chemicals. The problem is the woman gave the sexual excitement and delight in a man, to somone else, and the husband is left with the husk — emotional sloppy seconds, as it were.
Now the reason why women may not be sexually attracted to their husbands may be due to innate factors such as fatigue, anxiety and illness. However, if these are not the issue, the reason why the wife may be sexually unresponsive to her husband is because he is sexually unattractive. I know this may be a hard task for some of the commentators here to grasp, but perhaps, just perhaps, the wife is ok and the fault lays with the husband. Perhaps the husband has absolutely no charisma, has an external locus of control, cannot make a decision, is lazy, is not houseproud, can’t keep a job down, lacks any ambition or is too needy. The list can go on.
Or maybe she’s just a whore who gave it away and then lied about it. Funny how you keep going on and on, alternating between supposed intellectual superiority (not realizing that *you’re* the one late to the party, sparky) and shaming (“you feel inferior because you are inferior [to her past lovers]”. Umm, yeah, right. Have you seen some of the land whales out there demanding to get married to satisfy baby rabies as they hit the wall? Oh, wait. You mentioned it in the next paragraph
The sexual response in both men and women is conditional to external stimuli. No amount of “willing” on my part will get me horny for a fat chick.
Great. Now what does a guy do if a woman was promiscuous before marriage, and in an attempt to drive him off (because she is suppressing her sexuality with her husband out of shame for the past, as she knows in her slimy little soul /Dave Barry reference, modified> that she doesn’t deserve him, balloons up? Oh, and now all the sudden it’s *his* fault for being unattractive?
But returning to the prior paragraph:
Perhaps the husband has absolutely no charisma, has an external locus of control, cannot make a decision, is lazy, is not houseproud, can’t keep a job down, lacks any ambition or is too needy.
Speaking of two different circuits: sexual arousal (manosphere “alpha”) is different from provider (manosphere “beta”). So lack of ambition will drive her off, but not because he’s not “hot” — note the number of players and PUAs who brag about banging McMansion housewives, lawyers, what have you, where she showers him with gifts and does all the paying.
It seems (similar to the way a woman argues) that you are backing up the dump truck of male blame and unloading ALL the shaming accusations you can find all at once, a sh*tstorm of epic proportions, in an attempt to get the men here emotionally confused or apologetic, so that team woman can get away with slatternly behaviour.
FAIL.
(blathering about Simon deleted)
The more I read about what grey whiskers wrote the more depressing it is. As a married men I guess we stuff all that down and hope its not our own reality, even if we know the hard facts. If a man allows his mind, and we all do time to time, to run our images of what happened in the past it can be downright ruinous to his heart.
grey_whiskers says:
February 3, 2013 at 4:15 pm
Why the name calling? You didn’t have the original thouhgt. You did expand on Troll King’s original thought well. Then went and name called him.
Why the attack? What did he say that set you off so much? It does not enhance your writing when all you can do name call in response. Your points do not refute what Troll King said and the name calling came as peevish out-of-the-blue snark.
Again, why the name calling?
@grey-whiskers
Epic FAIL on your part. “What is more important, the gold on the altar or the altar which makes it holy?”
The women could have saved EVERYONE a lot of grief if they’d just kept their mouths shut and not sucked off ANYONE until their husband,*after* marrying him.
I agree with you on this. However very few people, male or female will be virgins on their wedding night.
So no, the problem won’t be solved by women being allowed to be whores, then lying about it.
I’m not suggesting that she lie about it. I’m suggesting that she decline to discuss her sexual experience and leave it as an unknown. He can accept not knowing and marry her anyway or pass. However it is clear that sharing the details isn’t helpful.
empath wrote :
The more I read about what grey whiskers wrote the more depressing it is. As a married men I guess we stuff all that down and hope its not our own reality, even if we know the hard facts. If a man allows his mind, and we all do time to time, to run our images of what happened in the past it can be downright ruinous to his heart.
Even if a woman can get past her issues and there are no sexual ghosts haunting her marriage bed her husband won’t be able to let it go. The more details she shares the more vivid the images of what happened in the past will be. I think that she should keep it to herself.
T:
“However very few people, male or female will be virgins on their wedding night.”
Based on anecdote and observation, men as a general rule seem to be able to handle their own sexual pasts better than women can handle their own sexual pasts. Men seem to be better able to put their pasts behind them and not let it affect their marriages. Men are simply better disposed toward sexual variety than women are.
“I’m not suggesting that she lie about [her sexual past]. I’m suggesting that she decline to discuss her sexual experience and leave it as an unknown. He can accept not knowing and marry her anyway or pass. However it is clear that sharing the details isn’t helpful.”
Bad idea. The topic WILL come up. As the husband he’s making the commitment. IN effect he’s “buying” her. Since he is the one who is buying, and he is the one who is making an enormous investment, and he is the one who is taking enormous risks, and he is the one who will pay dearly and will lose if this doesn’t work out, he’s entitled to inspect what he’s buying. He’s entitled to her sexual inventory. He’s entitled to her sexual audit. If she refuses to give it, he will wonder what she is hiding, what she is ashamed of. He’ll know if she can’t be straight with him and she can’t look him in the eye on her sexuality; she won’t be able to come clean about other things.
Nope. She needs to give up her sexual inventory. All of it. In sordid detail. Names. Dates, Places. People. He has a right to know what he’s buying. A Man should pass on any woman who refuses discussion on this.
Nope. She needs to give up her sexual inventory. All of it. In sordid detail. Names. Dates, Places. People. He has a right to know what he’s buying. A Man should pass on any woman who refuses discussion on this.
You know Deti, I have always found the level of detail you insist upon interesting. So much so that I asked my husband about this quite a while ago. He found it interesting too. Yes, he wanted to know about my past in general, but details didn’t interest him at all.
I asked if this was some kind of reciprocal grace because he knows that his past might bothersome to me since his was far and away more extensive than mine. He said no. He just doesn’t understand why (barring OOW pregnancy or disease) any person would want to envision their spouse in all kinds of sordid ways with other people.
He thinks it is most especially damaging in the context of a converted Christian man or woman who has shown the true fruits of repentance.
“The truth isn’t always happy or pleasant,” as stated above, can be quite an understatement.
In fact, for some men, the truth is, to quote Lovecraft, a “terrifying vista of reality.”
Am I comparing romantic disillusionment to meeting Cthulhu? Well, for some men, having their Madonna/Whore complex shattered can well destroy their sense of reality, make them “go mad from the revelation or pray for the peace and safety of a new dark age.”
Some of you are catholics, right? Marian devotion is quite a thing with you. Consecrating yourself to Mary is the height of pedestalization.
Yeah, I know, she’s ‘immaculate,’ but ultimately you’re setting yourself up for exactly the sort of world shattering that comes with…well I am not an MRA but I’ll agree that society does paint women in too pretty a light, so ‘red pill’ revelations.
Since we’re quoting the Matrix like it’s the goddamn third testament anyway, remeber how Morpheus said that some people get unplugged and their minds can’t handle it? I think that’s something to be mindful of.
@ deti – If she refuses to give it, he will wonder what she is hiding, what she is ashamed of. He’ll know if she can’t be straight with him and she can’t look him in the eye on her sexuality; she won’t be able to come clean about other things.
And it’s fine if he wonders. Clearly wondering is better than knowing the details as I’ve read several comments from men that show that they clearly cannot handle the details.
I asked if this was some kind of reciprocal grace because he knows that his past might bothersome to me since his was far and away more extensive than mine. He said no. He just doesn’t understand why (barring OOW pregnancy or disease) any person would want to envision their spouse in all kinds of sordid ways with other people.
He thinks it is most especially damaging in the context of a converted Christian man or woman who has shown the true fruits of repentance.
It does seem cruel to make someone who has repented share every detail of their past sin with their spouse. And then even though she’s been forgiven by God replay these images in your head and hold them against her. Imagine if a wife did that to her husband. Got the details of his lowest moments (sexual or otherwise) and then replayed them in her mind. How would that effect her ability to love and respect him?
T, you are reading far into what I wrote. My indication of distress was not even about the whole details vs no details issue. It was about the sexual hangover the women have vs what men have and how, when she rejects her husband, if he lest himself he can wonder would she have rejected X.
I really do not want all that detail, though have picked up a fair amount over the years, just in normal discourse, but not really at the level of descriptions of sexual acts in settings. The things I do know, even some details, are not what inform my mental meanderings anyway, the things the mind creates are likely far worse than if one could see a video loop of the actual event.
From Bitter Misogynists:
Whiners and Losers.
“Game Blogs, PUAs, MRA guys, they’re all a bunch of whiners who’d rather kvetch about feminism and real or imagined wrongs than just get up and get along.”
The problem I think most people have with the tone of what Game has, or is evolving into is that essentially Game is a masculine response to what feminism (really feminization) has evolved into.While I can empathize with the feeling that Game can assume a plaintive tone at some blogs – particularly MRA oriented ones – contemporary Game is really a countermeasure to the social conditions feminist ideology has embedded in our culture for the past 50+ years. However, the social framework has been established as such that even my pointing this out makes me suspect of complaining or “bitter”. See how that works? My belief is still, ‘don’t wish it were easier, wish you were better’, but it’s been built into feminization that to even analyze and have critical opinion of it makes you a whiner.
There is no going back.
NEO: “There’s no going back now is there?
MORPHEUS: “No. But if you could, would you really want to?”
One dynamic I encounter from guys who’ve experienced the ‘community’ in varying degrees is a desire to go back to their previously comfortable, ignorant bliss. The reality they become exposed to is too much to bear and they spit the red pill back up. They want to plug themselves back into the Matrix.
No person both frightens and disgusts me more than one who understands truth, but willfully opts for denial. It’s not the desire to do so that disgusts me, I understand the desire, it’s that there is no going back. Even if you never read another post or blog and regressed back to your old ways, you’ll still make the associations, see the signs of what others have analyzed in your own periphery, in women’s and the world’s behaviors and motivations, and you’ll be reminded (even if subconsciously) of that truth, or at least the uncomfortable push to get at the truth. You will only get what you’ve gotten if you keep doing what you’ve done.There is no going back now. Don’t wish it were easier. Wish you were better.
“He just doesn’t understand why (barring OOW pregnancy or disease) any person would want to envision their spouse in all kinds of sordid ways with other people.”
It isn’t about wanting to envision one’s spouse doing this or that.
It’s about the man satisfying himself that he is making a good investment. Or , at least, satisfying himself that his investment is worth the risk he is taking. He has a right to know what those risks are. Her past sexual history is one of those risks. And as we’ve discovered, it’s a risk that very well might direct the course of their sexual future together. If she’s got a past, he’s got a right to know about it. Or, he has a right to withhold his commitment; or withdraw that commitment if the risks are not as advertised.
If you secure a health insurance policy based in large part on being a nonsmoker when in fact you are a smoker; and you later get lung cancer, your insurance company will immediately cancel your policy and then sue you to recover monies paid for your health benefits less premiums paid. This is because the risk was not as you told them it should be. The contract is void ab initio; it is as if the contract never existed, because it was procured through fraud or through omission of material information.
If a woman is going to spend her 20s slutting it up, then seeking commitment from worthy men; this is the kind of thing she’s going to have to face. Everyone pays the piper for their conduct; this is how the slut recasting herself as marriage material faces the music.
What you and Elspeth seem to be saying is that she has a right to slut it up and later get commitment without telling the man precisely what he’s committing to. She is in effect saying “Don’t pay any attention to the fine print, it’s just boiler plate language. If you want this, it’ll be on my terms.” And the man has every right to say “Open the package and let me see all the goods you’re trying to sell me.”
@Elspeth
I guess Deti was talking about knowing the sexual past before marriage so you can decide if you invest in a woman or not. After marriage, there’s no point. As you say, nobody want to picture his spouse doing sordid things. But if he pictures his girlfriend doing sordid things, maybe he doesn’t marry her and he is entitled to this information before taking big risks and doing major investment (that is, before marriage).
If your husband disagrees, fair enough, he is entitled to not hear this information but he cannot forbid other men who are interested in this kind of information. Any man should have the right to know what it is committing to before commitment.
Having said that, I find that Christian women have it too easy. They can spend their prime years doing sordid things with alphas and, when their biological clock is ticking, they can land a beta provider and claim that their past doesn’t count, because “they have repented and they are new Christian women now”: Talk about eating your cake and having it too.
lzozozozozlzlzozozlzl i foudn my coprroate-state ritaalzinz pressccritptionz o i am backz in truruee formrmz zlzlzlzlzlzlzlozzzzzlozzo !!! zlzozolzlzlzlllzlzzlzlzzloozozozzozozozozoz omzlzog zlzozozkzoz
I’m fascinated at the dynamic here.
Men are turning over the rock, poking around at the earth and stuff beneath it, and hoping to find out as much about what’s under there as possible. Some of it’s interesting, but much of it stinks and is horribly ugly.
The men don’t much like it, but they know they need to find out what’s under the rock so they can integrate it into their knowledge base, deal with it as best they can and move on to the next rock.
Meanwhile, the women deep down know what’s under that rock, but they don’t want the men to know. They stand there recoiling in horror at the efforts to see what’s there. They shriek “Don’t turn the rock over! There’s nothing interesting there anyway, and you don’t need to know what is under it.”
“He’s turning it over! Uh, yeah, what you’re seeing there isn’t all that important. It’s ugly, but not ALL rocks are like that. And you don’t need to know EVERYTHING about what’s under there. All you need to know are its general properties and characteristics. Why trouble yourselves with trying to find out all you can about what’s under there? It’s only going to keep you up at night anyway and you don’t really need to know.”
And the man replies:
“I want to know what’s under the rock because it’s my rock. And my land.”
What you and Elspeth seem to be saying is that she has a right to slut it up and later get commitment without telling the man precisely what he’s committing to. She is in effect saying “Don’t pay any attention to the fine print, it’s just boiler plate language. If you want this, it’ll be on my terms.” And the man has every right to say “Open the package and let me see all the goods you’re trying to sell me.”
He can move on if he cant accept not knowing. But I don’t think that she has any obligation to discuss the intimate details of her past sex life with anyone. Yes, she has to “pay the piper” but that involves repenting of her past sin before God, not before the man that she is thinking about marrying.
Yes, she has to “pay the piper” but that involves repenting of her past sin before God, not before the man that she is thinking about marrying.
God forgives sexual sin. He does not relieve the temporal consequences. Those include sexual diseases, fertility problems, pair bonding/intimacy problems, sexual hangups, and guilt, regret and shame. And they can also include involuntary spinsterhood and an inability to secure commitment from any man, even men she deems “beneath” her.
She does not have to “repent” to a man whom she is thinking about marrying. She does need to tell him about her sexual past so he can make informed decisions. He has a right to inquire to any level he feels necessary so that he can satisfy himself the investment he is making is a good one. If she says “none of your business” to ANY question, he should pass.
If she wants commitment, she’s gotta do what it takes to secure it; and that includes coming clean about her past.
I would strongly, strongly advise any man dealing with a woman who refuses to discuss her sexual past to run, not walk, run as far away from that woman as quickly as possible. Marrying a woman without knowing her sexual past is like hiring someone without any details on the resume — it’s a very stupid idea. Every guy will have his own threshold as to how much detail he wants/needs to know in order to evaluate, but if the woman is taking the position that it is none of his business, guys, just drop her.
T says:
He can move on if he cant accept not knowing.
Somehow I doubt this same rule would apply to the man’s financial situation.
One of the advantages to what deti is suggesting is the security of knowing there is nothing about your spouse that someone else knows that you don’t. It’s part of respecting your husband. If there would ever be a possibility for him to be embarrassed by not knowing something it would be highly disrespectful.
I’ve encountered plenty of people that don’t believe my life should have worked out as it has, that my husband must not know the truth about me. They take it upon themselves to inform him. Never, not once, has he been informed of something he didn’t already know. It is the enemy’s plan to separate and destroy the covenant. It is the only way he can win. You feed his ability to do this with omissions.
T and Elspeth:
Your position advocates women wanting to have it both ways.
“I want to slut it up in my 20s and then sell myself as marriage material when I’m done slutting it up. Nobody has any right to ask me anything about my past. What matters is what I am now.”
“I want to have the freedom to make mistakes in my youth, but any man who marries me has no right to know about those mistakes. And even if I tell him about my mistakes, he has no right to judge me or my mistakes.”
T and Elspeth:
John and Jane meet. Jane is a sweet, innocent virgin. John is now a business owner. But unbeknownst to Jane, John has a past. He has two felony convictions, one for tax evasion and one for rape. He declared bankruptcy twice. He’s had numerous credit card cancellations, and has a couple of collection agencies on his tail. His business is in “sales” but it’s really a front for the Chicago mob.
Jane does a little digging and finds the bankruptcies, the shoddy credit history and the convictions. She asks for details. His reply?
“It’s none of your business. I had a few problems, but I’m a good Christian now and I love Jesus. The Lord told me to tell you that you don’t need to worry about it. Now get undressed. I’m horny, baby.”
Would you disrobe for such a man?
Would you have sex with such a man?
Would you marry such a man?
I’ve encountered plenty of people that don’t believe my life should have worked out as it has, that my husband must not know the truth about me. They take it upon themselves to inform him.
*The last time this happened, it was my own father who did it. He did it intentionally, with malice, to embarrass my husband. You could almost hear the cries of defeat when it the plan failed miserably.
Don’t ever underestimate the enemy.
T:
Part of repentance is walking out the temporal consequences of one’s sin. Some walk out the temporal consequences of sin for the rest of their lives.
@ empath – “T, you are reading far into what I wrote. My indication of distress was not even about the whole details vs no details issue. It was about the sexual hangover the women have vs what men have and how, when she rejects her husband, if he lest himself he can wonder would she have rejected X.
I really do not want all that detail, though have picked up a fair amount over the years, just in normal discourse, but not really at the level of descriptions of sexual acts in settings. The things I do know, even some details, are not what inform my mental meanderings anyway, the things the mind creates are likely far worse than if one could see a video loop of the actual event.”
And I suspect that if your wife had declined to discuss her previous sexual relationships at all, including whether or not she’d had any, that you might wonder but your mind wouldn’t be creating things more graphic than a video loop of an event or wondering if she would have rejected whoever else she’d been with.
The fact that deti thinks that a woman’s willingness to perform certain sexual acts with her husband determines the state of her heart based on what she may have done with another man is sad and misguided. Although this isn’t quite the same thing and is probably TMI, when I was younger I was more adventurous about where I was having sex with my husband. As I’ve grown up and become a mother I’m less impulsive and less willing to risk embarrassment and arrest. My husband could look at that an conclude that I am less in love and less attracted to him now than I was then (when in fact the opposite is true), or he could conclude that I’ve grown up and that sex in the dressing room of the lingerie department doesn’t hold the same appeal to me as it once did and that I’d rather enjoy the anticipation of sex when I get home.
There are a lot of reasons that a woman will turn down sex and assuming that the ghost of Rockbanddrummer is the reason is an unnecessarily damaging and likely false assumption. And it is a never ending cycle of negativity. If she has sex and doesnt seem that into it would she have been into it with rockbanddrummer? If she has sex and doesn’t orgasm would she have orgasmed for Rockbanddrummer? If she orgasms once would she have come twice for Rockbanddrummer? If she initiates sex, loves every minute of it and performs fellatio did she learn that from Rockbanddrummer?
Your wife cannot win by sharing. You cannot win by knowing. The only way to avoid it is by her either not doing it ( in most cases that ship has sailed) or by her not telling you.
Not long after getting married, my wife and I were visiting some people and they started giving her a hard time about this “boyfriend” of hers. I knew nothing of this and was… well… humiliated. Even worse… this guy was a mutual acquaintance.
The people ribbing her… my blue pill self would have wanted to challenge the lot of them to a duel if the times we live in had permitted it. At the same time… I felt betrayed by my wife. I had trusted her… and I should have been told beforehand.
Edmond About quotes
“Marriage, in life, is like a duel in the midst of a battle. ”
And the smart man doesn’t want to bring a knife to a gunfight. The manosphere knowledge imparted to a man helps to insure that he doesn’t. You can get angry, and I often do, that a man has to think about women in this way, but you have to think about women in this way.
I wish that I could meet them and say “Hi, I’m Mark. I’m a decent and noble person with a good morality, good ethics, and sense of fair play and justice.”
But you can’t. You can’t be a nice guy. You have to be an asshole. You have to be a bad boy. You can’t show you care more than her, that you are more invested than she is. I am sorry that goes against the grain of what would be intuitive to a Christian man. But the anecdotes and testimony of the men in manosphere makes that conclusion undeniable.
To me, no Arab, no Islamic extremist, no North Korean, no Chinese poses nearly the immediate threat to my financial, mental, and emotional well being as a woman does and I view her as the biggest jeopardy that a man will face in his life. I would have to say that women are my biggest enemy if one judges an enemy as those who would harm you, do damage to you, and to affect your life in negative ways. And I treat them as such.
South American men say “Mujers son un mal necessario”. (Women are a bad necessity). Something is lost in the translation and what is inferred to other men is a collective shared experience of the price you pay to have one in your life but that men are compelled to do it. So I guess it is the South American version of
Can’t live with them; Can’t live without them.
But at least the manosphere keeps you from being naive and foolish in some romantic idea of who and what they are.
I know this. I will never foolishly love another woman again, idealistically as a boy loves. I will never make foolish sacrifices, never invest wholly and completely in one ever again for the rest of my life. And nor do I long for pre Red Pill naivete. Because that naivete caused a lot of heartache, disillusionment, and pain. And now I know I will never have to feel that pain again. And I think that is a pretty good trade.
“Your wife cannot win by sharing. You cannot win by knowing. The only way to avoid it is by her either not doing it ( in most cases that ship has sailed) or by her not telling you.”
So what you’re really saying here is that a woman lying and misrepresenting her way into a marriage is OK. After all, SHE’s getting what SHE wants — the validation of BEING married. She does not actually love him. She’s using him for her own ends.
So I guess that means you’d be OK with a man lying about his finances or his job to entice a woman into marriage and sex.
@ deti – T and Elspeth:
Your position advocates women wanting to have it both ways.
“I want to slut it up in my 20s and then sell myself as marriage material when I’m done slutting it up. Nobody has any right to ask me anything about my past. What matters is what I am now.”
“I want to have the freedom to make mistakes in my youth, but any man who marries me has no right to know about those mistakes. And even if I tell him about my mistakes, he has no right to judge me or my mistakes.”
It isn’t about whether or not he has the right to judge her or her getting away with something. It’s about whether or not telling him would do more harm than good. From some of the things that I’ve seen posted by a variety of men it seems like knowing the details does more harm than good.
Here’s another example. Not exactly the same, but still relevant I think. I know a woman whose husband cheated on her once with a woman that he worked with. He changed jobs, he stopped having any contact with her what so ever and the brief affair was over. He started being a better husband. But he felt guilty so he told his wife a year later. Now she is miserable, she is looking at the woman’s Facebook profile and googling her name and crying and wondering if she was prettier or sexier or better in bed. That affair has invaded every area of her relationship with her husband and I would not be surprised if they divorced.
Yes, she had a right to know and yes he had a right to tell her, but that didn’t make it right to tell her. It did more harm than good. It isn’t about getting away with something so much as it is about doing a cost benefit analysis and keeping your mouth shut when it isn’t worth it.
@Anon
“Some of you are catholics, right? Marian devotion is quite a thing with you. Consecrating yourself to Mary is the height of pedestalization.
Yeah, I know, she’s ‘immaculate,’ but ultimately you’re setting yourself up for exactly the sort of world shattering that comes with…”
This is logically inconsistent. Let’s do some substitution to demonstrate how.
‘Some of you are baseball fans, right? Being a fan of Ted Williams is quite a thing with you. Putting Ted Williams into the Hall of Fame is the height of pedestalization.
Yeah, I know, he’s ‘greatest hitter of all time,’ but ultimately you’re setting yourself up for exactly the sort of world shattering that comes with…’
What–so because one recognizes the greatness of Ted Williams, one will be inclined to revere every left-handed hitting left fielder, however mediocre? No.
@deti – great life insurance analogy. Cuts right through the bullcrap. I’ll add that I have been noticing an alarming tendency for women to dismiss concealment as a form of lying. They appear to narrow it down to verbalizing untruths, but exempt the witholding of information from those who often have a right to know. I agree with those saying “move on”.
So what you’re really saying here is that a woman lying and misrepresenting her way into a marriage is OK. After all, SHE’s getting what SHE wants — the validation of BEING married. She does not actually love him. She’s using him for her own ends.
So I guess that means you’d be OK with a man lying about his finances or his job to entice a woman into marriage and sex.
I am not advocating lying or misrepresenting. I’m advocating her refusing to discuss it and him either taking it or leaving it.
T, do you mean “take it or leave it” BEFORE marriage? I think that is okay. She can refuse to tell. He can then refuse to marry. That’s reasonable.
T:
The more you talk about this, the deeper hole you dig.
Dalrock’s second law, articulated first on the “Is Frivolous Divorce Really Overstated in the Manosphere” thread, is:
if you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING.
So now you are saying it’s OK for spouses to keep secrets from each other. It’s OK for a spouse to cheat and then conceal it.
Stop digging, T.
I’m always amazed at how some women can rationalize behaviors so as to maximize their gain and minimize their consequences. Slut it up in 20s, then sell yourself as wife material at 29 just before your collision with The Wall, then lie about your N, then when the truth inevitably comes out, run to Jesus, demand respite from your temporal consequences; then browbeat and shame anyone who correctly passes judgment on your conduct and points out that your past informs your suitability for marriage.
@ sunshinemary – Yes, take it or leave it before marriage. Some men will take it, and some will leave it, but that’s better than being married to a man who thinks about you and Rockbanddrummer every time he doesn’t get the response that he wanted sexually.
Ah, good, I was just going to post about how this reasoning dovetails with the reasoning used to conceal affairs that have run their course unbeknownst to the cheatee spouse. But, I see T has graciously beat me to it.
That reasoning has always struck me as the most self-serving piece of crap that I’ve ever heard. The cheatee spouse has the right to know so that the cheatee spouse can decide what to do about the relationship — leave, stay, reconcile, divorce, etc. Simply withholding the information is essentially robbing the cheatee spouse of the ability to make that decision — it takes it away from them, completely. The justification is basically “what the cheatee spouse doesn’t know can’t hurt them” — which is self-serving bullshit used by a liar and a cheat to justify covering their own tracks. Yes, disclosure has consequences, but the cheatee has the right to know and make decisions for themselves — even with respect to an affair that is in the past. It calls into question the entire dynamic of the relationship, after all. Concealing it is nothing more than an ungoing lie that is repeated each and every day for as long as it continues. There can be no justification for this, and not least of which being to protect the cheatee spouse!! Protecting them by perpetuating a lie? What self-serving crap that is.
And, yes, refusing to disclose sexual history is the same thing — self-serving crap. The good news about this particular piece of crap, however, is that the guy has not married the woman yet, and so it is much easier for him to walk away from the secrets she insists on keeping to herself (for his benefit, of course, ahem), and he should always, always do so. If she is going to keep secrets from you about that, she’s going to keep secrets from you about anything else, really, if and when she deems that you knowing it would “not be good for you”. Don’t ever sign up for that.
The funny thing about feminist trolls is that logic always manages to get in the way. Eh, $.50 for trying.
“Yes, take it or leave it before marriage. Some men will take it, and some will leave it, but that’s better than being married to a man who thinks about you and Rockbanddrummer every time he doesn’t get the response that he wanted sexually.”
The moral of this story is:
If you don’t want your husband thinking about you and Rockbandrummer, then don’t get with Rockbanddrummer in the first place.
If you don’t want to have to disclose it, make it so there’s nothing to disclose.
Oh, and this:
If you got with Rockbanddrummer before, chances are the person who is really thinking about you and Rockbanddrummer together is…. YOU.
T:
I would imagine most would leave it. They should, anyway.
T:
The more you talk about this, the deeper hole you dig.
Dalrock’s second law, articulated first on the “Is Frivolous Divorce Really Overstated in the Manosphere” thread, is:
if you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING.
So now you are saying it’s OK for spouses to keep secrets from each other. It’s OK for a spouse to cheat and then conceal it.
Stop digging, T.
I’m always amazed at how some women can rationalize behaviors so as to maximize their gain and minimize their consequences. Slut it up in 20s, then sell yourself as wife material at 29 just before your collision with The Wall, then lie about your N, then when the truth inevitably comes out, run to Jesus, demand respite from your temporal consequences; then browbeat and shame anyone who correctly passes judgment on your conduct and points out that your past informs your suitability for marriage.
First, I have no dog in this fight. I am married to the only man that I have had any kind of sex with. My comments aren’t based on a desire to get away with anything. It actually benefits women like me for women who slutted around to share all the dirty details as I look even better by comparison. It doesn’t however benefit the husband or the wife to share those details with each other, and it can actually cause harm.
Secondly I am not advocating lying. I am suggesting that she refuse to tell and that he either accept that and marry her or be on his way. Unless a woman has been incredibly indiscreet then there is no way for the details of her past sex life to “come out”. Has one of your wife’s exes ever shown up to talk about that time she gave him a bj? You are worried about Rockbanddrummer because she told you about Rockbanddrummer.
I absolutely think that it is ok for spouses to keep somethings private. Whether or not you share depends on whether or not they need to know. I don’t think that the wife that I mentioned previously needed to know about her husbands long since over affair and that he in effect victimized her twice by sharing. If he’d gotten an std or gotten her pregnant then she would certainly need to know. If he’d kept cheating she would have found out eventually.
I don’t believe in full disclosure for the sake of full disclosure.
@ SSM I would imagine most would leave it. They should, anyway.
Whether he takes it or leaves it they will both better off than if he had taken it thinking about Rockbanddrummer.
T:
By all means, continue on in your blissful ignorance.
It isn’t full disclosure for the sake of full disclosure. It is full disclosure for the sake of your husband knowing what he’s investing in and committing to. It is full disclosure for the sake of a wife knowing she can trust in her husband.
I believe you. It’s weird, though. There are like 12 women in America who can say that, and they all seem to comment in the manosphere. It could make one suspect that they are being disingenuous.
@ deti – The moral of this story is:
If you don’t want your husband thinking about you and Rockbandrummer, then don’t get with Rockbanddrummer in the first place.
If you don’t want to have to disclose it, make it so there’s nothing to disclose.
You are preaching to the choir. I absolutely agree that you shouldn’t do things that you don’t want to tell your husband about later. But for the overwhelming majority of women, that ship has sailed long before marriage entered her mind. Wave good bye to it because it left when she was high school or college. Now we have to decide how best to deal with how things are, and not how the should be.
By the way, T, the truth always comes out. It always does.
It comes out when a years-ago vasectomized husband finds condoms in his wife’s purse when looking for spare change.
It comes out when drunken reminiscing ensues while H and W are at her high school reunion.
It comes out when a guy W knew from way back when, whom W told H was “just a friend”, looks at her a little too long and she gives back at him a sly smile, a neck touch, and a hair flip.
It comes out when W begins sobbing uncontrollably during sex.
It comes out in her sexual hangups, her baggage, her daddy issues.
“Wave good bye to it because it left when she was high school or college. Now we have to decide how best to deal with how things are, and not how the should be.”
I guess so.
So how do we deal with it?
It means apartments, Scotch and video games for him.
It means a sucky HR job and cats for her.
And it means a cratering birth rate, an underclass consisting of single moms and bastards, rising taxes, cratering marriage rates, and total societal and economic collapse.
I am married to the only man that I have had any kind of sex with.
I believe you. It’s weird, though. There are like 12 women in America who can say that, and they all seem to comment in the manosphere. It could make one suspect that they are being disingenuous.
A lot of women say that and Ive seen them, commenting outside of the manosphere. It is something that I tend to keep to myself offline because other women are insulted by it. I’ve had a woman tell me that I’m not “sexually empowered” because I’ve only been with one man and that being proud of that is like saying that a woman’s only worth is in her vagina. Discussing it isn’t worth the nasty treatment that you will get from slutty women.
M3 wrote a good post about that recently, T.
http://whoism3.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/the-fly-on-the-wall-reports-back-on-girls-night-sluts-shame-good-girls/
The solution is simple – just be Rockbanddrummer.
https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/the-slut-paradox/
There are four ways a man ends up married to a high-N former carousel rider:
1. He never asked about her past,
2. He asked, she refused to tell him, and he decided for whatever reason it wasn’t that big of a deal after all,
3. He asked, she told him the truth about her past sexual adventures with drummers, jocks and bartenders, and he married her anyway, or
4. He asked, she lied, and he married someone who he thought was a low-N woman when she really wasn’t.
Gee, I wonder which of these four scenarios is the most common…
@ deti “Wave good bye to it because it left when she was high school or college. Now we have to decide how best to deal with how things are, and not how the should be.”
I guess so.
So how do we deal with it?
It means apartments, Scotch and video games for him.
It means a sucky HR job and cats for her.
But this isn’t true. Most of the women who marry will have previous sexual partners as will most of the men. If I had to guess I’d say like 95% of them. All of those marriages cannot be full of horrible issues.
@SSM – M3 wrote a good post about that recently, T.
Yes, he nailed it! And women who are holding out on sex for marriage are at a disadvantage if they are upfront about it. Most men date for sex and happen to find a woman that they want to marry along the way. If you say that you don’t believe in sex before marriage then they leave. Perfectly reasonable behavior on his part, because he doesn’t even know you, he just met you so of course he isn’t looking to spend the rest of his life with you yet. The key is to let him know that you are interested in him sexually, but not let him know just how much it will take. Not easy in today’s sexual market place.
I am not surprised that so many women take the waving their coochie around approach to trying to attract a husband. It doesn’t work all that well, but for most it works better than being upfront about not having sex.
“All of those marriages cannot be full of horrible issues.”
Not so fast.
Half of those marriages will end in divorce. Of those who divorce, the wife will initiate or cause to be initiated about 80 percent. Most of the time, the wife will divorce because she’s “not haaaaaapy” (translation: He’s not as alpha as I want him to be.)
Of the half remaining, a significant percentage of them will be unhappy marriages in which one or both are frustrated, angry, depressed, despairing. But they stick it out and stay together for religious reasons, financial reasons, or “for the children”.
Of the remaining percentage of “good” marriages, a percentage of them will have some sexual problems that inhibits their sex life. One or both of them have a sexual disease. One or both has fertility problems from past sexual conduct. She’s a secret alpha widow, carrying a torch for her old flame. She has a ton of unresolved issues because of her previous sex life: trust issues. Flashbacks. She can’t give him fellatio because “nice girls don’t do THAT”.
T “Secondly I am not advocating lying. I am suggesting that she refuse to tell ”
I just had to explain to my 13 year old daughter that yes, lying by omission exists and is indeed lying. FFS.
T
Your wife cannot win by sharing. You cannot win by knowing. The only way to avoid it is by her either not doing it ( in most cases that ship has sailed) or by her not telling you.
Picture yourself at a wedding, as the bride slowly walks down the aisle in her white gown.
You look at her and think, “Oh, she looks lovely”. You hear quiet snickering, turn and see a few men in the room just behind you looking at each other and grinning. They elbow each other, and snicker some more. You try to shush them, and they just snicker louder , with one saying “White dress? Oh, yeah, I remember her in a white dress, heh, heh, heh”. What do you suppose the groom is thinking as he hears this, eh?
Or:
A man walks into a room with his wife, and men back by the corner bar guffaw and high five each other. “Welcome to the club, pal!”. He looks at her, and she turns her face in embarrassment – everyone in the room except him knows what’s what, it seems. Yeah, that’ll build trust. You bet.
T, if other people know her history and he does not, sooner or later it will come out, and possibly in a fashion she won’t like. If she tells it, she can at least have some control over the order of the narrative. On the other hand, if the man finds out from his buds – even more so if one of them is a past paramour – the info will come out in a rather blunt and even crude fashion.
@ Novaseeker
The justification is basically “what the cheatee spouse doesn’t know can’t hurt them” — which is self-serving bullshit used by a liar and a cheat to justify covering their own tracks.
This line of reasoning can easily be used to justify cuckoldry as well, thereby allowing women to get sperm from exciting (but unreliable) alphas while the nurturing (but boring) betas get to raise the kids, thinking they’re theirs. And women have to keep the betas in the dark about this – for their own benefit, of course. After all, what good does it do Billy Beta to tell him that Allen Alpha is little Jimmy’s real dad, when Billy is such a good father to Jimmy?
Indeed, many feminists are on record endorsing cuckoldry as a legitimate and acceptable mating strategy, for these very reasons. (Hugo Schwyzer quickly comes to mind here).
Interesting, Deti that you interpret my comment as “I want to slut it up throughout my 20’s.” No woman has the right to withhold pertinent information or lie. I define pertinent as ANYTHING her potential husband asks her about.
I met my husband when I was 21 and married him when I was 22. I never went away from home to college to “slut it up” and my father kept me on a ridiculously short leash up until I moved out at 21.
I was simply referring to the level of detail you seem to feel is necessary as many (most?) men probably don’t feel that way.
Funny how you automatically assume the absolute worst from my comment, even lumping me in with T, with whom I agree on nothing with.
@pivot:
It doesn’t hold, because Ted Williams’ glory is not inherently unapproachable, and he may in fact someday be surpassed.
Though, using sports as an analogy could still be relevant to our interests.
You know how it feels like too many major leaguers in just about any sport seems to be doping? How disillusioning that must be to those who grew up being taught that sports was a manful, honorable endeavor?
Finding out that love isn’t fair, and that women aren’t earthly angels, must be just as bad for someone brainwashed to believe so.
Also, @T:
In fairness to men who reject girls who keep their legs closed…being a good girl can be just as misandrist as being a bad girl who makes mistakes and blames it all on men. In fact, I sometimes wonder how many of these women saints who “consecrated” themselves to God so as to not marry just simply hated* men.
In fact, in Islam, quite a few women are happy to wear the burka because they don’t want to be “objectified.” Now how’s that for misandry?
* – to be clear, I define hatred the same way that misogyny is socially defined: any unpositive feeling, thought, or words about the male gender. You either love the male gender as a whole unconditionally, though judging individuals, or you hate them. To have it in you at all to feel anything unpositive about the male gender is to be a man hater. This is to forestall any objection like “some women fear men, without hating them.” I hear enough of that horseshit in feminist circles.
For clarification, this is what I was commenting on, specifically:
All of it. In sordid detail. Names. Dates, Places.
This and this only was what I was referring to. Please don’t read more into what I said than what I actually said. You project an awful lot in your replies.
@Anon
“It doesn’t hold, because Ted Williams’ glory is not inherently unapproachable, and he may in fact someday be surpassed.”
Your criticism of the point where my analogy departs in resemblance to your original statement actually strengthens my case. I believe you missed that in your haste to disagree with me.
@Picture yourself at a wedding, as the bride slowly walks down the aisle in her white gown.
You look at her and think, “Oh, she looks lovely”. You hear quiet snickering, turn and see a few men in the room just behind you looking at each other and grinning. They elbow each other, and snicker some more. You try to shush them, and they just snicker louder , with one saying “White dress? Oh, yeah, I remember her in a white dress, heh, heh, heh”. What do you suppose the groom is thinking as he hears this, eh?
Or:
A man walks into a room with his wife, and men back by the corner bar guffaw and high five each other. “Welcome to the club, pal!”. He looks at her, and she turns her face in embarrassment – everyone in the room except him knows what’s what, it seems. Yeah, that’ll build trust. You bet.
T, if other people know her history and he does not, sooner or later it will come out, and possibly in a fashion she won’t like. If she tells it, she can at least have some control over the order of the narrative. On the other hand, if the man finds out from his buds – even more so if one of them is a past paramour – the info will come out in a rather blunt and even crude fashion.
I think that you are going to extremes here. A woman who has been so indiscriminate that this scenario was possible would likely put out so many red flags that no man who cared about that kind of thing would consider her seriously anyway. If it comes out then it comes out and she can deal with the fall out. But I don’t think that a woman telling her husband ” I fellated Rockbanddrummer’ and the rest of his band” is going to go over any better than Rockbanddrummer and the band snickering and high fiving later while talking about how she used to give head on the tour bus.
Even if she has control over the narrative and Rockbanddrummer and friends never say anything the damage is done. That is obvious to me just from reading the comments from men.
Anyway, I’m not telling anyone how to live their life and I didn’t mean to offend with my comments. I’m just saying that telling all the dirty details of your past sex life sounds like a bad idea. I also think that if she lies before marriage and she tells him after that she is beyond cruel. He can’t justify leaving her and probably doesn’t want to stay. It’s a horrible betrayal.
I was being pretty generous in entertaining the analogy to start with.
But come on. Fine. Forget the Mary stuff, if it bothers you that much. Honestly, even without such popery, I think it’s easy for men to make a hyperidealized vision of how a woman should be, and end up disillusioned when women can’t live up to it.
@ anon – In fairness to men who reject girls who keep their legs closed…being a good girl can be just as misandrist as being a bad girl who makes mistakes and blames it all on men. In fact, I sometimes wonder how many of these women saints who “consecrated” themselves to God so as to not marry just simply hated* men.
In fact, in Islam, quite a few women are happy to wear the burka because they don’t want to be “objectified.” Now how’s that for misandry?
* – to be clear, I define hatred the same way that misogyny is socially defined: any unpositive feeling, thought, or words about the male gender. You either love the male gender as a whole unconditionally, though judging individuals, or you hate them. To have it in you at all to feel anything unpositive about the male gender is to be a man hater. This is to forestall any objection like “some women fear men, without hating them.” I hear enough of that horseshit in feminist circles.
I doubt that men are walking away from good girls because they suspect misandry. They want to have sex and sooner rather than later. It is perfectly natural behavior and there are a lot of women who would walk away from a man who wanted to wait until marriage too. There is also the pefectly reasonable fear that you might end up married to someone that you are sexually incompatible with.
I think it’s the “in sordid detail” some are objecting to. I don’t think most men want to hear, “Then in my sophomore year I dated Jim. He was eight inches and he gave me the best orgasms I’ve ever had when he spanked me.” Uh, no thanks. But just knowing her N isn’t enough either. He needs to know there was a Jim who was a big part of her life, with whom she sinned and broke her own rules. If the relationship was intense enough that she failed that semester and had to take it over, he needs to know that. If she still has any mementos of Jim, he needs to know that (and make discarding them an ultimatum).
So (deti, correct me if I’m wrong) I don’t think sordid detail means we want to hear every act spelled out. But we do need a pretty specific timeline of what went on in her life sexually and emotionally before she met us — not only so that we can decide whether she’s worth the risk, but so that if we decide she is, we know what consequences to prepare for.
Incidentally, the important thing here isn’t that it’s a litany of her sins. If she were raped, completely against her will through no fault of her own, he needs to know that too. He deserves to know because of how it will affect her and them as a couple. It’s not about punishing her by making her confess; it’s about his right to know what he’s getting into.
I would strongly, strongly advise any man dealing with a woman who refuses to discuss her sexual past to run, not walk, run as far away from that woman as quickly as possible. Marrying a woman without knowing her sexual past is like hiring someone without any details on the resume — it’s a very stupid idea. Every guy will have his own threshold as to how much detail he wants/needs to know in order to evaluate, but if the woman is taking the position that it is none of his business, guys, just drop her.
I actually agree with this. Before marriage, ask what you want to know, expecting complete honesty. I have no problem with that, Brendan. In fact, I never said (not even once) that a woman should refuse to discuss or lie about her sexual past with a man when they care considering marriage.
Like I said, there was a lot projection here on Deti’s part. I also agree with Sarah’s Daughter that no one should be able to approach my husband with any information about me that I haven’t revealed to him. Of course, the best way to handle that would be to not have any surprises in the first place.
It could be that my husband was more gracious because he knew there is little to nothing under this rock to begin with, or that he felt blessed that I went all in with him knowing the extent of his own baggage. But I still think he’s onto something, that most people are not interested in every touch, kiss, position, and place their intended experienced before they met.
@anon, February 4, 2013 at 1:09 pm
“I think it’s easy for men to make a hyperidealized vision of how a woman should be, and end up disillusioned when women can’t live up to it.”
The fantasy that a man can construct about how life could be is not the same thing as the basis for that fantasy.
That basis, that “hyperidealized vision” as you call it, is the expectation that women will not lie, cheat, and steal, and that they can find happiness through bringing joy to others, and so on.
So, anon, what would you call people who cannot live up to something as simple as that, because basic human kindness and empathy are an unattainable “vision”?
It might sound like I’m without empathy for women, but I was actually proud to be a “feminist” until I found out that they consider men as a whole guilty of patriarchy by the mere act of drawing breath.
So I don’t want to shock anyone when I say:
Cail: There’s two problems. One, by holding their feet to the fire with this, that allows them to turn it back on you. They can in turn interrogate you at length as to things you’d rather gloss over or not mention entirely.
Two: Let’s face it, no human on earth is pure, so it does sound like you’re wanting both to sit in judgment of her past, as well as demanding that every man in her past is dead to her. As long as he isn’t trying to fuck her again, why should you even care?
Or is being neurotic about cheating and being ready to pull the plug at a moments notice only something that women do?
I agree that sordid details are unnecessary, but who and to what level are you/were you attached is relevant.
If the guy isn’t into you after you tell the truth then he wasn’t into the REAL you. Move on.
I wish I had not been out of town this weekend, but I experienced this first hand with men whom I taught. It happens most often with guys who aren’t willing or unable to use the information you give them. They see women for what they are, but are unable to use that information for the good of themselves and others.
It basically comes down to powerlessness. They were powerless in both red and blue pill lives, but at least they were ignorant in the blue.
@eon: While those are included in the vision, the vision is far more all-encompassing than that.
In fact, and I admit this is oversimplifying, but it seems like guys want virginal sluts, and girls want Edward and Jacob.
but who and to what level are you/were you attached is relevant.
Yes, Morticia, I agree. I also agree with Cail that sexual abuse/rape is an important as anything else. It can cause some serious hangups. I revealed that as well as any other attachment to my husband.
I'm still not quite sure how my offering my husbands thoughts on asking for all the gory details came to be interpreted as my offering cover for sluts on the prowl for commitment.
“It basically comes down to powerlessness. They were powerless in both red and blue pill lives, but at least they were ignorant in the blue.”
Well yeah. Knowing that your dreams are impossible is a very bitter pill to swallow. After all, how can you live with having to settle for less than what you were allowed to believe possible?
@Anon
“I was being pretty generous in entertaining the analogy to start with.”
That seems very yellow pill of you. Next time don’t feel the need to exert yourself on my account.
Whatever. I’m not a Matrix character.
I’m just tired of both sides, honestly. I just want to come home to a quiet house and a caring wife, which seems impossible by both sides accounts.
Cail:
“But we do need a pretty specific timeline of what went on in her life sexually and emotionally before she met us — not only so that we can decide whether she’s worth the risk, but so that if we decide she is, we know what consequences to prepare for.
“Incidentally, the important thing here isn’t that it’s a litany of her sins. If she were raped, completely against her will through no fault of her own, he needs to know that too. He deserves to know because of how it will affect her and them as a couple. It’s not about punishing her by making her confess; it’s about his right to know what he’s getting into.”
Yep. She doesn’t need to go into such detail. She does need to give up:
Her N, in total. That doesn’t mean her P in V N. It means each time she touched a penis, that counts. That’s part of N.
Significant BFs. Prior cohabitations/shackup partners.
The number of ONSs.
Rapes. Abortions. Miscarriages.
Has she ever done sex work at any time (prostitution, pr0n, stripping).
Any self-shots out there? Any videos out there? Am I going to see these on teh interwebz? Is the potential mother of my children a possible future YouTube celebrity?
That is the kind of info she needs to give up.
Anon:
“One, by holding their feet to the fire with this, that allows them to turn it back on you. They can in turn interrogate you at length as to things you’d rather gloss over or not mention entirely.”
Oh well. Better not do it if you don’t want to be asked to explain it later. I’ve had to do this. So has everyone else. But more to the point: A woman’s N is fundamental to her marriage value and the risk she will cuckold her husband later. She damn well better expect to have her feet held to the fire on it, just as she expects to hold her husband to things such as fidelity and provisioning.
“Two: Let’s face it, no human on earth is pure, so it does sound like you’re wanting both to sit in judgment of her past, as well as demanding that every man in her past is dead to her. As long as he isn’t trying to fuck her again, why should you even care?”
I’m not sitting in judgment of her past; I’m trying to determine if the investment and commitment she is demanding that I make is worth it. Yes, I damn well can demand that every man in her past be dead to her, particularly since she can demand that every dollar I earn, beg, borrow or steal be put up to support her and our kids. And, well, since I am being asked to invest and commit every fiber of my being to this one woman, forever, and hitch myself to her, and obligate myself to support her and her children (regardless of whether this actually works out or not), then you’re damn right I can sit in judgment of her past.
She shouldn’t keep mementos, photos of drunken nights together, or any photos of her old flames. It’s not that I’m worried he is trying to f*ck her again; it’s that I’m worried she still wants to f*ck him. It’s that she still carries a torch for him. It’s that she still pines away for him. It’s that her photos, mementos and keepsakes tell me where her heart (and her tingles) really is. No man should invest in or commit to a woman who insists on romanticizing her past as such.
“Or is being neurotic about cheating and being ready to pull the plug at a moments notice only something that women do?”
It’s not neuroticism. It is healthy caution.
@Anon
“I just want to come home to a quiet house and a caring wife”
I wish you the best. Fight the good fight, brother in arms.
So? No one ever said it shouldn’t work both ways. She deserves to know what she’s getting too.
I already answered that: because your sexual past affects your future. It doesn’t matter that Jim from college is never going to come looking for her — it doesn’t matter if Jim is dead. What matters is the effect he had on her, or more precisely the effect that her acts with him had on her. If you don’t think your past experiences affect who you are today, then we might as well stop there, because we have no common ground on which to continue.
That doesn’t mean I’m sitting in judgment of her. The state of her immortal soul is between her, her confessor, and God. This isn’t about whether she’s going to Hell; it’s about whether she would make a good wife for me (and vice versa). I can only sit in judgment of myself — what I need in a wife, and on what things I can compromise and what I can’t. I can’t make that judgment without knowing the facts.
And yes, I do demand that every man in her past be dead to her. If that’s too much to ask, then I won’t be getting married. I’ve seen too many relationships ruined by a woman pining for past alphas to accept anything less.
Thanks.
For what it’s worth, I was just being snide when I spoke of ‘popery,’ in fact I’m an ex catholic and consider it the truest of the Christian religions, simply by virtue of its longevity.
Exactly. To use an extreme: a woman says she’s been with three men. Okay, that seems pretty good, even low by today’s standards. But it could mean very different things:
She had a high school boyfriend she slept with with a couple times, one LTR in college, and one ONS in college. Three men, none of whom she’s particularly attached to, and no major emotional hangups from any of them. Maybe she has a couple pictures from the LTR, but she’s not averse to trashing them.
Her first and only boyfriend really messed her up and talked her into group sex with a couple of his friends on multiple occasions, some of which they videotaped. One time occurred at a biker rally while a crowd of people stood around and cheered. She has the boyfriend’s name tattooed in 2-inch letters on her lower back.
In both cases, she has N=3. Hence the need for “sordid detail.”
@Cail: Well, that’s the thing, isn’t it.
Why are you dating a woman for whom you fear you may be inadequate for?
My anger is that it seems impossible for this not to be the case. You seem to think it can be forestalled by rules, interviews, and some sort of weird operant conditioning.
Troll King said:
“If you had some success in the sexual and dating markets as a blue pill guy then you are likely to turn into a PUA. If you were isolated or a bit of a loner then you probably go MGTOW. If you were somewhat angry before, then watch out.”
…slightly OT, but I’m new….
Boy howdy can I relate to each one of these assessments.
I don’t count myself as a bible-thumping evangelical or even a backseat christian, but I do have a personal relationship with God that I am comfortable with, so the idea of backlash is something I am not embroiled in.
I know *I’m* not angry…now that I’ve found a pair of TL Ray-Bans and have seen the world I do see worth in MGTOW. I certainly am glad I’ve read all of Dalrock’s missives on the dreck that is Fireproof. I was given a copy by an evangelical friend as a way to salvage my spirit while I weathered the frivorce my ex put me through.
SO glad I never watched it. It’s still in the cellophane wrapper.
Huh? I’m not talking about fear; I’m talking about finding out what you’re dealing with. You can’t decide whether to invest in a person until you do that. I’m also not talking about being “inadequate” to deal with her particular psychosis, although that might be part of it in some cases.
I’m really not sure what you’re objecting to. When you meet someone and think there might be a future there, you have to find out how well you match up. That includes your morals and what you can live with in a spouse. Note: I’m not saying you should reject a woman if certain facts come to light. That’s something each person has to decide for his or herself. But that’s the point: you can’t decide unless you know.
Most people seem to think “finding a match” means you should have the same hobbies, want to live in the same kind of neighborhood, etc. They think those things matter, but when it comes to something as central to who you are as your sexual experiences, you’re supposed to be able to wipe that out and be a blank slate at the beginning of every relationship. That’s just silly.
SSM “T, do you mean “take it or leave it” BEFORE marriage? I think that is okay. She can refuse to tell. He can then refuse to marry. That’s reasonable.”
Bingo!!!
Well, I beg to differ about the sordid detail thing. As Novaseeker said, I think every man is entitled to the level of detail he decide.
In my case, if my gf had had sex with Johny Rockbanddrummer. I want to know whether:
1. She had an average intercourse.
2. She did an orgy while snorting coke and three men tapping all her orifices and spanking her.
To me, the second situation is very different from the first one. Hence the need of sordid detail.
@Cali: Interesting, but it’s not like any of that was my point.
The post I was replying to came off as “oh noes she fucked alphas before me, must use operant conditioning before hypergamy and frivorce sets in.”
@Anon: I see what you mean. I agree; if her past is a problem for you, it’s probably best that you move on, and not try to deprogram her or something.
@Legion on February 4, 2013 at 8:33 am
(“Why the name calling at Troll King, followed by ad hominem against me deleted).
It’s trivial, really. The poster going by “Troll King” tried to troll, but did so unsuccessfully, by pressing the wrong buttons, and not pressing them hard enough.
Therefore, I called attention to it, by pointing out the failure at trolling.
And therefore, since they failed at trolling, they no longer deserve the name “Troll King” and so I downgraded them from “King” to “Duke”.
Of course, if you marry her and then find out she’s an alpha widow (maybe she lied; maybe you were just too in lurve to ask), you’re going to have to deal with that somehow. Whether that’s called “operant conditioning” or just learning some game, I don’t know.
Would you disrobe for such a man?
Would you have sex with such a man?
Would you marry such a man?
Hey Deti
There are plenty of women that will fuck the hell out of a man like that. ha ha ha ha
This is 100% off-topic, but I can’t resist sharing.
This is a memo dated January 10, 1951 at IBM that says:
1. Women don’t have to resign from the company when getting married
2. The company will consider hiring married women
Wow, the world has changed in 60 years!
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/02/the-internal-memo-that-allowed-ibms-female-employees-to-get-married/272832/
@greenlander on February 4, 2013 at 9:06 PM —
This is 100% off-topic, but I can’t resist sharing.
This is a memo dated January 10, 1951 at IBM that says:
Aww, what the h*ll. I’ll see you and raise you the infamous urban legend of the Mouse Balls memo:
http://www.neystadt.org/john/humor/IBM-Mouse-Balls.htm
There’s been a lot of talk of post-meditation about women’s wrong doings,but not a single word about pre-meditation for wrongs they contemplate with the same air of entitlement to not being questioned.
In my State there are very many women who plan to divorce just as the 10 year mark comes,because this is when my State law empowers alimony,theft of retirement funds,above and beyond house-stealing and child support.
I hear it all the time “She was just waiting for the ten years.”
A few of them have been overly excited at the amounts the lawyers have told them they could steal,and let the cat out of the bag early,when the man lawyers up ahead of the ten years,she tries to get back with him as the payout is not what they had thought.
Also I do not ‘buy’ that women cannot help with the shit-testing and hypergamy,my grandmother never did any of those things,it is NOT biological,it is social training.
The “New Way” is to never hold women accountable,so they play these games and claim No agency unless it’s to their favor.
Like when making a false accusation of DV.
It’s anything goes with the wimmin these days,and if you guys don’t like the coppers will fix your attitude for ya.
All hail King Biden and his blue knight army,and black robed agents of satan paid the Blood Money of family death by VAWA/VOCA funding.
Men are second class citizens,protest at your own danger.
Word
Rollo tomassi — One dynamic I encounter from guys who’ve experienced the ‘community’ in varying degrees is a desire to go back to their previously comfortable, ignorant bliss. The reality they become exposed to is too much to bear and they spit the red pill back up. They want to plug themselves back into the Matrix.”
it is hard to disengage, and it is hard to stay disengaged, it hurts to unplug and the wounds stay open
because i know a little about what’s ahead — Christ’s millennium, and the permanent Kingdom of the Father — it’s a lot easier to stay unplugged, and the thought of going back isnt attractive anymore, bc what is ahead is far more desirable,wholesome, enjoyable, real and enduring, and i get to be a (small) part of it
without these assurances (which i didn’t discover nor merit, but was led to by mercy) i expect i’d have regressed to the matricks long ago, and never peeped out again
this world tell us we can do it by ourselves, self-actualization, self-determination, age of the expanding man, woman at liberty, but in fact we can’t do it by ourselves, i LIKE having a God that cares about me and directs me and leads me, it doesnt offend me that i’m not very important
“It’s anything goes with the wimmin these days,and if you guys don’t like the coppers will fix your attitude for ya. All hail King Biden and his blue knight army,and black robed agents of satan paid the Blood Money of family death by VAWA/VOCA funding. Men are second class citizens,protest at your own danger.”
freebird dont hold back just say what you mean, keeping yr thoughts in leads to stress
just go ahead we can take it
Freedom is a very nice thing to have, but a very slippery thing. There’s people that want to take control of you and use you for their ends, and there’s plenty of that (even with marriage!). People recognize that threat, but there’s another one this quote describes. To a certain extent, I’ve observed in many arenas that people tend to hate their own freedom.
It puts a new burden on them of choice – they have all this ability to do with their lives what they want to do and the ability to live how they wish. Yet there will be some that will rebel against it. Let’s face it, a life of freedom isn’t an easy life – there’s that fear of the unknown that accompanies it that a lot of people just can’t take when they have it.
That burden of choice is what people are rejecting when they spit the red pill back up – it’s easier to be “institutionalized” and have people around you directing and guiding your life (if you get used to it) than it is to guide and direct your own life. No uncertainty, no fear of the unknown – in essence no danger.
The Red Pill is emancipation. The Red Pill opens the cell door. The person involved still has to walk out of the cell and learn to treasure their freedom enough never to want to be back in the cell ever again. That’s a hard road, no doubt.
Johnycomelately says:
Hosea
“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”
You left off the last part of Hosea 4:6 – “… because they REJECTED knowledge.”
@Sherlock (February 2, 2013 / 4:06 pm):
So, have you been dipping into the GB4M reading list, or have you independently reinvented/rediscovered an elaborated version of Sir Almroth’s wheel?
“In this matter one would not be very far from the truth if one alleged that there are no good women, but only women who have lived under the influence of good men.”
– Almroth Wright (1913)
Deti,
To be fair here your later comments have changed. I’ve read Elsbeth’s and yours and she’s stayed consistent and you haven’t. I think you largely agree and have mis-characterized her comments.
Also I do not ‘buy’ that women cannot help with the shit-testing and hypergamy,my grandmother never did any of those things,it is NOT biological,it is social training. (freebird)
Ding! Ding! Ding!
If sexually liberated women were “hypergamous” we’d obviously be headed in a direction other than straight towards a dystopian future of the sort portrayed lightheartedly in the movie Idiocracy. Women naturally breed down, and are so staunch about it they’ll drag men down to their level if given the “empowerment”.
They hated patriarchy so much because it forced them to do the opposite, i.e., actually be hypergamous to the fullest extent possible, where they were reminded constantly of their inherent inferiority. Without that, they straight away get tattooed up and head directly for the trash and the gutters to meet their equals.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2273255/Drunken-sex-strangers-flaky-friends-savings-The-regrets-20-women-laid-bare.html#axzz2K2rd7HIv
Women of the past had to deal with religious, social and economic pressures that kept their feral, hypergamous natures in check. What’s more, those pressures largely kept men’s polygamous natures in check as well.
Those days are long gone, of course.
I don’t think Martian Bachelor even knows what ‘hypergamous’ means.
It doesn’t mean choosing men whom mamma or poppa will necessarily approve of.
The basic argument is that women are choosing based on dark triad traits and tingles.
Sometimes these dark triad traits can lead to vast success -e.g. Genghis Khan (who was no idiot), and sometimes they lead to a life of debauch or criminality (e.g the typical “bad boy biker”), but they usually don’t lead to a small accounting practice down on Main Street.
but they usually don’t lead to a small accounting practice down on Main Street.
You mean Sarbanes Oxley is not a biker gang?
Crap, cancel that jacket order…..shit
Its something a feminist would never understand, I actually feel pity for them.
No, Clarence, I think it’s you guys who are all confused.
Mencken described long ago how feminine incompetence assured them a second, third, or fourth rate man. Farrell wrote about how a woman would have difficulty being married to her seventh choice in men, because she was passive and didn’t aggressively pursue the top six on her list when they crossed her path. I can say in my long life I’ve only known one married woman who couldn’t have done better, often much better. I could provide multiple other disproofs. Suffice to say I just don’t see this oft asserted red pill claim about innate female hypergamy being supported by any real evidence. I mean, Genghis Kahn? Please. Men are still talking about him ~1000 yrs later, not women.
And it is women who promote polygamy, not men. Devlin pointed out that the male desire for virgins was an expression of a monogamous impulse, one which is lacking in women. So I don’t buy that “women are monogamous while men are polygamous” bunch of feminist agitprop. Quite the contrary. Polygamy != Hypergamy
Good one, Empath!
Oh, bad boys – just the current fad and script assigning badness to men who get sex.
In the 60’s/70’s the fad was the SNAG – Sensitive New Age Guy. Remember Neru jackets? By the 90’s women’s sexual fashions had turned to being bi. So that biker garb will eventually go into the closet, too.
There have been persistent rumors for ~25 yrs that the geek will become the next new big sex symbol, but it could be anything, given women’s whimsical, arbitrary natures. “Hypergamy” gives women powers of perception, taste, and will that just aren’t warranted.
Hypergamy will always be directed towards the flavor of the month. When different theories and discovered truthes are brought out in the manosphere they don’t disappear with the changing of the subject. Clarence’s comment on hypergamy was very accurate. The dark triad traits and the tingles rule. Reality also plays a role. That is where the ride the carousel as the wall approaches get yourself a reliable chump. have no tingles but fear and panic at the approaching wall will be an ok substitute. Old reliable beta being the man he is removes the fear and panic. Carousel rider is now secure and frivorces to return to the carousel (hypergamy true to her self)
The target of hypergamy and the motivation and drive is diverse as the different classes of women along with where they gina tingle. Some things are herd directed. hypergamy can be towards a drug dealer , serial killer, rich guy, sexy guy, fat man , skinny man, bad boy, femmie type, reliable provider, one they can change it doesn’t matter. What does matter is hypergamy is real and there are no checks at any level of society cultural to legal on hypergamy just the way the laws of misandry intend.
hypergamy is highly influence by her status and how she wants to be perceived by her herd. Gina tingle is really big, along with practical reality based on her own SMV, her money, career situation, what she is aware is available, some women just want the title of christian woman. What ever it is hypergamy is the motivation of the feral woman and civilized woman the only difference is the direction of the focus of the motivation of hypergamy.
GKC:
I have no doubt my positions have changed over the months I’ve been commenting. I rethink things as others challenge me. I also have no doubts as to Elspeth’s integrity.
I am not sure what point you’re trying to make. Whether my positions have changed really isn’t of any moment to the level of detail a man would like on his partner’s sexual past.
@ Martian Bachelor
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/prison_officer_busted_after_becoming_4ZhIf3tJtlVHPoikYZIEdI/1
Oops, Page 1:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/prison_officer_busted_after_becoming_4ZhIf3tJtlVHPoikYZIEdI
and a pair of quotes:
“I took a chance because I was so vulnerable and wanted to be loved,” Gonzalez said, according to court documents.
The guard recounted how she “kind of got sucked into his world” and seemed to view her role partly as spiritual redeemer.
Gonzalez told her acquaintance that “she felt like, well, why not give him a child – as far as giving him some hope,” the complaint says.
If anyone here can tell me why a hamster spins on it’s wheel and what is going through its mind I’m all ears.
Martian Bachelor:
Arguably most humans are serial monogamists. And I include both males and females in that. Make of it what you will.
Since we are talking about past histories. Here is a song by Dave Edmunds. “I Knew The Bride When She Used To Rock n Roll”
@Matian Bachelor
I mean, Genghis Kahn? Please. Men are still talking about him ~1000 yrs later, not women.
Well, he’s dead. That’s not alpha.
I agree with your point that women do not actively pursue the best man they can get, mostly because they don’t know how to, and it’s a lot of effort. (Men also don’t do as well as they can, for the same reasons.) Hypergamy means they will want he best that is available to them, not that they will run after the best men they can possibly attract.
I Art Laughing
I just read that article this morning on Yahoo news. Pure bad boy gina tingle. I bet the first time she hooked up with that guy she was so arroused her whole body was just quivering with heart racing with panying uncontrolable breathing. Her whole body was a sexual organ even her hearing. All that guy had to do was say anything and touch her hand and those eyes would roll up and she would melt with legs shaking. She was going to get that cop killer dick.
There is an assumption being made here that should be obvious. Women’s hypergamy is not objective, it is fundamentally subjective “hind-brain” behavior. It’s not enlightened self-interest, it is not guided by a higher morality or deep intuitive instinct. They are acting according to the flesh (sin nature) and us believers know that the wages of sin are death. Hypergamy=sin=death.
If people do what comes natural they will die, furthermore their heritage will be death and destruction.
Too much blue pill ideal logic applied to hypergamy
hypergamy + women don’t understand cause and effect very well = gina tingles for bad boys and idiocy like “I took a chance because I was so vulnerable and wanted to be loved,”
@ greyghost
Too much blue pill ideal logic applied to hypergamy
Yeah, that’s basically it — men trying to apply male logic and reasoning to explain women’s mate choices. I think that explains a lot of the disagreement over the hypergamy question.
Blue pill men would look at a girl choosing a socially dominant, tatted-up fry cook over a polite, less dominant accountant making six figures as proof that women aren’t really hypergamous, that they don’t always look for the “alpha male”, that they don’t always choose the best. If she were hypergamous, why would she pass up a guy with a high paying job in favor of a fry cook with no future?
What they don’t get is that, to the girl’s hindbrain, the fry cook IS the alpha male, the fry cook IS the best she can get at the moment.
Human sexual attraction triggers haven’t changed all that much in the last 100,000 years or so. Basically, women still want strong, dominant men who have what it takes to survive as “cave men”, and men still want young, fertile women with large breasts who are able to make lots of healthy babies and have plenty of milk to feed them with once they’re born.
So the girl’s hindbrain, the dominant fry cook is the better choice. I mean, how useful were accounting skills 100,000 years ago anyway?
Let me anticipate an objection. The “survive as cave men” metric is, admittedly, oversimplification on my part. i.e., It’s very easy to point out countless examples of boy band members, handsome actors, and PUAs who could not “survive as cave men” for ten minutes, yet still have hot young women hurling their bodies at them everywhere they go.
But I’d say that the men in these cases, though perhaps physically weak, are still socially dominant and powerful, in the sense that they command attention from virtually everyone in their vicinity everywhere they go. Being able to turn every head in a crowd, to have your name on everyone’s lips — that’s a high level of power and status that very few people have.
There are other things at work here — preselection perhaps being the most important. Women want men that other women want, or who other women have chosen in the past. They are wired to see this as proof of a man having high quality genes fit for reproducing in the next generation. Once a man is widely known for being attractive to women, his “alphaness” tends to be self-reinforcing.
Retrenched says:
But I’d say that the men in these cases, though perhaps physically weak, are still socially dominant and powerful, in the sense that they command attention from virtually everyone in their vicinity everywhere they go. Being able to turn every head in a crowd, to have your name on everyone’s lips — that’s a high level of power and status that very few people have.
Rule breakers posture as socially dominant by not caring about what society, or others say about them. In a more savage age that required a man who could challenger other men and make them back down. He acted without the need for rules or regulations. These days it requires nothing. In fact if you beat one of them senseless you are likely to be jailed. They are essentially a legally protected class. They operate in the twilight between social disapproval and the law. Some break the law, but given their limited horizon, that isn’t as large a burden as it would be to the accountant. The fake savage lacks the survival skills of a real savage and is really a parasite on the accountant who is required to fund the idiots self-destructive lifestyle.
Many women see this sort of behavior and respond to it. They largely know its fake, but its enjoyable and to a great extent, consequence free. Mr accountant is paying for both of them and their mistakes, and he will be there later when she decides she can no longer put off marriage. She can follow her basest instinct knowing its carnival like nature because she won’t be held accountable for it.
Slumlord said:
“I have a real problem when they start bleating about how their sexless marriages are always the fault of their wives and a characteristic of women in general.
“I know plenty of women who have been screwed over by their husbands. I know plenty of men who will refuse to pay any money for the upbringing of their own child. I know plenty of husbands who simply don’t want any contact with their children, especially if they’re little. Yeah, I know there are good men that have been screwed over as well but not sex has a monopoly on goodness or evil. The MRA types will do well to remember that.”
How can MRAs ever forget about women being screwed over by husbands, deadbeat dads, and absentee fathers? It’s all the MSM ever talks about when parenthood, divorce and family law is brought up. The issues of divorce theft, divorced father as wage slave, imputed income as basis for child support, chilimony, frivorce, etc. never seem to come up.
It’s funny. The only women I have EVER seen take any kind of responsibility for the breakups of their marriages are some of the divorced women who comment in the MAndrosphere; and even they are very few.
Just about every divorced woman I know in real life tells the same one-sided story of an a**hole ex husband who done her wrong at every turn. IRL, even the wives who had affairs on their husbands refuse accountability:
“I wouldn’t have cheated on him if he had just been nicer to me.”
“He drove me into the arms of another man by going bald and gaining 100 pounds.”
“He was working all the time and wouldn’t pay attention to me.”
“I just didn’t want to have sex with him anymore. It’s not my fault.”
“It just happened. I didn’t mean for it to happen. If he had been around and paying attention, it wouldn’t have happened. It’s not my fault.”
Pingback: Interlude: Keeping the Red Pill Down
I pop in here occasionally, although I can’t recall if I’ve even commented here before. I found this place via “the Spearhead.” I used to comment on the Christian Men’s Defense Network, but the heresy was blinding. I can deal with heretics easily enough, but I was disgusted by the way the White Knight Brigade jumped my case when I called a heretical woman (gasp!) a heretic. It’s not like I called her a “bitch:” she actually IS a heretic.
I wiped the dust off my e-feet and moved on. Oh well, I understand that it went defunct.
I was intrigued by the discussion about bringing sexual experience into first marriages, and the question about full disclosure. Here’s my tale if anyone cares to read it:
I had girlfriends before I met my wife, and some of them made it clear that they were sexually available (good Catholic girls that they were – I’m Protestant if that matters to the discussion). I turned them all down, as I was saving it for marriage. I guess we could call that “Virgin Game.” Nothing says “aloof” as clearly as a firm, “I won’t have sex with you.” The really slutty one proposed soon after that. No kidding. Anyway, I won’t say that I arrived ay my wedding never having been kissed, but my “V” card had not been punched.
As a guy with all the right attributes of being a “good catch,” and having saved it myself in spite of multiple offers to give it up, I expected to marry a virgin. I really didn’t care how much “in love” she was – if I could do it then so could she.
Enter Karen. Karen was a Christian – in fact we met through a Christian dating service (long and funny story behind that), and dated for several months. At one point it appeared to be getting serious enough that I knew I had to get answers to the “non-negotiables” before the relationship went much farther. So I asked her flat out, “Are you a virgin?” – insert long awkward pause – followed by me saying, “I am.”
The awkward pause told me all I needed to know. To her credit, she didn’t waffle, although it was clearly uncomfortable for her. It was the old, “There was this one guy in college…”
I was pissed. Not that she owed ME any sexual fidelity – we weren’t married – but that I had gotten into a relationship with a Christian woman who, if we DID marry, would only be able to offer me “sloppy seconds.”
We drove on in silence for a few minutes while I was raging inside and she was hanging her head in shame. Then I had one of those rare moments when the “still, small voice” is undeniable. That was 1987 and I can still remember it like it was yesterday, “I’ve forgiven her. Why can’t you?”
Ouch.
God never asks us questions because He doesn’t know the answer. It was clear: I HAD to let it go. I won’t lie, it was difficult to get my head around that.
Then a couple of weeks later I got a call from the nice lady who ran the Christian dating service. A new girl had picked my file and wanted to meet me. “REALLY cute,” she said. “You really should meet this one.”
Well… okay.
Almost from the first moments we both knew.
As things progressed she asked me about my sexual past. She wanted details. My response was, “I’m still a virgin. Other than that it’s none of your business. What about you?” She said the same in return.
We got engaged two months after we met and got married about two months after that. That was 25 years ago – and I can honestly say that we have never raised our voices to each other in anger.
_____________
Break
_____________
That is not to say that a woman’s sexual past is to be ignored. Karen messed up badly with one guy and had truly repented. I think perhaps it was necessary for ME to learn that particular lesson about redemption. That does NOT mean I advocate marriage with a woman who spent her best years riding the carousel and “gets right with God” just before she hits the wall.
I view it like this. Getting right with God restores the spiritual relationship, but we still have to deal with the temporal consequences of what we do. If I drink bathtub gin and go blind I can repent of the sin of drunkenness and be right with God – but I’ll still be blind. Of course God can miraculously restore sight to the blind, but it doesn’t happen frequently and is rightly considered a miracle – and a rare thing indeed.
Likewise a colorful sexual past harms a person’s ability to pair bond, and it seems to hinder women a lot more than men. In this analogy the loss of the ability to pair-bond is akin to losing one’s sight from bathtub gin. A woman (or man) can repent of the sin and re-enter a right relationship with God, but repentance does NOT automatically restore the ability to pair-bond. That requires a miracle on the order of restoring sight to the blind.
So when guys like Marc Driscoll (or maybe your pastor) act as though a quick walk to the altar to repent is sufficient for a man to ignore the fact that a women spent a decade riding the carousel, he’s almost certainly wrong – especially since most churches won’t hold HER accountable when her inability to bond to him as a Christian wife results in her return to promiscuity, rebellion, and initiation of divorce.
[D: Welcome.]
Clarence, the box which both “Game” and feminism puts men in is: if you get sex it’s because you’re bad, if you don’t get sex you’re an omega loser.
I’ll take a box where sex makes me good, but if not I’m a winner.
“Game” advertises itself as being based on modern science, ev-psych in particular. David Buss (@UTex) is a noted authority w/many papers/books, a widely used text, and he’s no feminist. I read his book of about a decade ago, The Dangerous Passion (luuuv, of course) and thought it was excellent science writing.
Time passes… I just picked up his book from ~2-3 yrs ago on “Why Women Have Sex”. It’s co-authored w/Cindy Mestin, the lead actually.
“Hypergamy” is not in the index. Maybe somebody should drop ’em a line because the redpill thinking has to be that this is a huge oversight.
The next-to-last of the eleven chapters is on the Dark Side, but I haven’t gotten to it yet – there’s nothing in the index on triad/dark.
Dalrock,
I don’t think these are backlashes against the Christian Manosphere. The truth is quite harsh for most individuals and most men. It is not something that can be swallowed instantly by the average joe.
This is nothing but a harsh wake up call. A phase every average joe who finally learns the truth needs to experience.
It’s like a child finally learning that their parents are not always truthful to them.
Sadly, there will be those who would become enemies to the cause. The good part is that the rest will eventually become soldiers for the cause.
@Lemuel of Masa
And he left alot of children. So genetically Success!!!
Hey Dalrock it seems some other churches are beginning to see the light. I see some manospherian talk appearing in this article. http://advindicate.com/?p=2756
The Bible doesn’t command husbands to force wives to submit, but it does tell us that the husband is the head of the wife. Christians, in general, have a duty to exhort one another. The Old Testament says to rebuke your neighbor frankly, so that you don’t share in his sin. If a Christian wife is behaving in an unsubmissive or disrespectful manner toward her husband, it is appropriate for her Christian husband to call her out for it. As the head in the relationship he may make it ‘socially uncomfortable’ for his wife to be unsubmissive, too. Of course, all this has to be done in love, as Christ loved the church. When Christ’s church was disobedient in the book of Revelation, He confronted her about it.
Pingback: Red pill bitterness | Dalrock
Pingback: Dealing With The Red Pill Truth | The Society of Phineas
I totally agree with you that Feminism is not the fault of men, period. I grew up in the 1960s. I watched as the “I am woman, hear me roar” group began to advocate. The Gloria Steinems, the Betty Friedans, telling all women they were oppressed and they needed fulfillment through a career. I’m not going to go in to my internal struggle between my liberal environment and education and my traditional upbringing. All of this had nothing to do with the behavior of husbands, but had everything to do with the increasingly liberal academic environment that decidedly leaned toward the left, if not communism. Yes, domestic abuse did and does go on. But it has only increased as gender roles have been bent. Domestic abuse was not the norm in the period I grew up in. Most of the kids I grew up with had happy, well-adjusted homes though it wasn’t exactly Leave It To Beaver or Father Knows Best. Feminists are in total rebellion against God and they have brought nothing but havoc to American families. And bravo to you for finding some empathy for women that don’t want to rule the roost.