The American Conservative has an article by Rod Dreher discussing gay marriage titled Sex After Christianity (H/T Masson). Dreher asks:
is sex the linchpin of Christian cultural order? Is it really the case that to cast off Christian teaching on sex and sexuality is to remove the factor that gives—or gave—Christianity its power as a social force?
He makes a strong case for answering this in the affirmative, and ties the abandonment of biblical marriage by modern Christians to the surge in public opinion in favor of gay marriage:
Conservative Christians have lost the fight over gay marriage and, as we have seen, did so decades before anyone even thought same-sex marriage was a possibility.
Dreher’s argument here is certainly not unique, but it is well made and the entire article is very much worth reading. However, there is one area where I have at least partial disagreement with him:
By the 1960s, the conviction that sexual expression was healthy and good—the more of it, the better—and that sexual desire was intrinsic to one’s personal identity culminated in the sexual revolution, the animating spirit of which held that freedom and authenticity were to be found not in sexual withholding (the Christian view) but in sexual expression and assertion.
…
Our post-Christian culture, then, is an “anti-culture.” We are compelled by the logic of modernity and the myth of individual freedom to continue tearing away the last vestiges of the old order, convinced that true happiness and harmony will be ours once all limits have been nullified.
While there is much truth to this, it isn’t entirely correct. There is a new sexual morality which modern Christians and non Christians alike have embraced in the place of biblical marriage, and it isn’t centered around overt hedonism. The new sexual morality is centered around romantic love.
This transformational shift has been so complete and so insidious that unless you have actively considered the idea you almost certainly have at least partially adopted the new mindframe yourself. Consider for example Roissy’s claim that he loves many of the women he has sex with. Does this offend you? Do you interpret this as Roissy pretending that his sexual exploits have a purity, a morality which you are certain they lack?
If so, why do you feel this way? Roissy certainly doesn’t suffer under a delusion that love makes sex moral. Roissy understands a simple truth; sex is more enjoyable when he experiences it both physically and emotionally. He has sex with romantic love for the same reason one might have sprinkles on their ice cream; he likes it better that way.
So where does this outrage come from? It isn’t biblical. From a biblical perspective Roissy is misusing both sex and romantic love. But how many modern Christians can even understand that?
What nearly all modern Christians have done is place romantic love above marriage. Instead of seeing marriage as the moral context to pursue romantic love and sex, romantic love is now seen as the moral place to experience sex and marriage. This inversion is subtle enough that no one seems to have noticed, but if you look for it you will see it everywhere.
Lifetime marriage, with separate defined roles for husband and wife and true commitment is what makes sex and romantic love moral in the biblical view. In our new view, romantic love makes sex moral, and the purpose of marriage is to publicly declare that you are experiencing the highest form of romantic love. Thus people now commonly refer to a wedding as “making our love official”.
The gradations we now apply to romantic love are symptomatic of the problem. We take great care to distinguish between “pure love” or “true love” and mere “infatuation” or “puppy love”. But there is no biblical basis for this kind of thinking, and scientifically there is no reason to believe the hormones/chemistry is any different. The reality is (physical) sex naturally tends to create feelings of romantic love. When channeled correctly this is both moral and incredibly enjoyable.
Only in a world of sex outside of marriage is there a need to distinguish between gradients of romantic love, where some forms are more pure and authentic than others. Take away the mind frame of serial monogamy, and these ideas become absurd. When the Apostle Paul advises us on marriage, he tells us to only marry if we “burn with passion”. There is no worry about “true love” vs “puppy love”, etc, because such thoughts are meaningless in this context. If the couple has a strong sexual/romantic attraction and are prepared to commit for life and fulfill the roles of husband and wife, then they should marry.
But Paul’s advice runs counter to what we now consider a woman’s sacred path to marriage. The modern view is that women especially need to experience falling in and out of love a sufficient number of times to identify “the real thing”. If she finds “true love” the new paradigm asserts, she will remain bonded to him for life. By definition of course if she later finds herself “trapped” and not wanting to keep her commitment, this is prima facie proof that what they had wasn’t true love after all. Marriage in this context is just a public assertion of true love, and there is no concept of commitment outside of romantic love.
Because it is love and not marriage which now confers morality upon sex, sex outside of marriage is now considered moral so long as you are in love. Thus we have the modern harlot’s defense/anthem “but we were in love!”. It is also entirely logical for gays to demand the equal right to “declare their love” via marriage under this new twisted paradigm.
See Also:
Great post, as always. Dalrock, I wonder what you think about the question of gay marriage yourself. I agree that given modern Christianity’s un-Christian and un-biblical view of straight marriage, gay marriage isn’t that much different.
Yes. The HUSsie mindframe, as it were.
Humanae Vitae predicted everything that is happening in our culture. Removing procreation from sex pulled the legs out from under everything else.
What’s really depressing to me is that I learned about Romantic Love and Courtly Love a long time ago. I just never processed it and looked at the meanings and implications. Perhaps that was because it was during the time that I had actively run away from God and didn’t have the Biblical context with which to compare.
Thank you for this article and the previous one(s) on the rise of Romantic Love. Your point about marriage is so very important. I wonder how I will try to discuss it with my wife…
.
OK, this is really profound. What a brilliant observation. This gave me a bit of a gestalt shift.
Two thoughts:
1. I can see why women would like this new model. It’s like the Old Country Buffet model; she gets to sample a little bit of all the entrees that look good before heading for the dessert bar. I can see why women would still want to marry under this model. I can’t see why men would agree to marry under these conditions, though. Either they hold to Biblical morality, and don’t want girls who’ve already been through the buffet line a couple of times, or they don’t hold to Biblical morality and thus why consent to “make it legal”? After all, Roissy gets all the “love” he wants, right? Yet most guys still marry. Why?
2. This model makes a lot of sense when you consider that women are the ones who generally file for frivorce. After all, if the commitment is to romantic love, then if the romantic love dries up, the marriage is essentially null and void. In fact, if romantic love is the moral part, then it would almost be immoral to stay in a marriage where the romantic part isn’t working. In fact, that makes total sense given the way I was treated at HUS last week – because I chose to honor my commitment to marriage during a time when the romantic love part was broken (it’s fixed now), I was heavily shamed. To quote Mrs. Walsh directly: “I can’t respect that.” But if romantic love is the moral context for sex and marriage, then I can see why it would be considered shameful and immoral not to divorce if you aren’t the romance.
An excellent article Dalrock!
Excellent analysis. The idea of “the one” is rooted in romantic literature, and finds almost universal appeal. My take on it is that, in a context of marriages almost completely determined in advance, romantic writers played on the “predestined” aspect of romance to substitute the plane and mundane for the extraordinary, and extraordinarily unlikely. After all, the purpose of marriage was to give each man his woman, and each woman her man, wouldn’t it be nice if there was really a perfect match for everyone, an optimal solution?
But now that we’ve thrown away the lifetime commitment and the exclusivity, “the one” is a completely different beast. As you remarked, it’s no longer a fantasy, but an excuse. A woman who has been sleeping around was just “actively looking for the one”. If they break their marriage vows, “he wasn’t the one”. If they’re single, it’s because they haven’t “met the one”. The “one” forms the basis of the hamster’s diet.
Wow. What a great blog.
Consider the phrase, “We are in love.” It implies that the individuals are within something that is in control and to which they are slaves. It removes personal agency and thus responsibility.
How far back does this way of thinking go? I’m thinking the Greeks had a major hand in this. They seem to think people could be taken over by the gods (or the Ideal Forms in Plato’s system). We still get “furious.” 🙂
The Romantic poets of the romantic age were admirers of the Platonic forms that allowed us to transcend our limitations and to be melted into a higher state of being. To lose oneself within a sublime Other was the highest aspiration of a romantic. Our popular culture is largely influenced by the romantic age.
Madame Bovary should be required reading for all young men and women today. Hopefully it could help counteract some of the powerful pull of romanticism that massively pervades our culture.
Paul of Tarsus seems to think that Sin takes over and does what we do not wish to do. This is a decidedly negative view on this tendency to give up personal responsibility in favor of this sublimation of one’s will into a “greater” or “outside” power.
Like so many deep questions I run into, I keep coming back to “What has Athens got to do with Jersusalem”? Are the Greek forms of thought corrupted yeast that is infecting the Christian bread?
I wonder if we see romantic love in other cultures not impacted by the Greeks? India? China? Africa? Anybody have any insights into this?
if you aren’t the romance = if you aren’t *feeling* the romance
@ the OP
I’ve noticed this too. Any time I try to describe the sacrament of marriage as the moral context for sex and reproductive commitment and romance, the other person seems clueless. Typically, they think of marriage as a barrier to being “in love”. In this logic, love is defined by the person’s feelings, excluding choices and temperament.
Properly understood, marriage is about much more than feelings. It’s about making a commitment and sticking to it through adversity. It’s about growing with someone throughout your life. That commitment is the best context by which adults raise happy, healthy children. Love is feelings ideology has trashed that institution.
That raises the question of when it might be a good time to marry. If marriage is the construct to pursue romantic love, wouldn’t that presume the courtship period is more platonic than we’d normally expect?
@SSM: why do men still marry? Because there’s cultural inertia, social conditioning, and feeling of guilt if you don’t. But marriage has been declining steadily, and more often than not, I hear people saying they refuse to marry, and counseling one another to do the same.
And about the text you put in bold: yes, yes, absolutely yes. This is the prevalent thought of popular culture, this is what counsellors and therapists will advise. If someone is in a relationship where they don’t feel love, they owe it to themselves and the other to break it off, and staying is a form of deception and therefore immoral. I wouldn’t be surprised if this way of thinking was shared by a few clergymen as well.
Dear All,
Marriage, as set forth in the Bible, was instituted as a civil manner for distributing risk and reward, and thus it is the bedrock of civilization. With marriage, one man would not be forced to pay raise the offspring of another man. A women would give her best years to child rearing, while a man would offer lifelong devotion. Both would live an ennobled story.
Because the central bankers do not profit off such a system which ensures foundational property rights, they had to destroy marriage via the creation of the feminist movement. 🙂
Instead of seeing marriage as the moral context to pursue romantic love and sex, romantic love is now seen as the moral place to experience sex and marriage.
Holy smokes. That’s gold.
Instead of seeing marriage as the moral context to pursue romantic love and sex, romantic love is now seen as the moral place to experience sex and marriage. This inversion is subtle enough that no one seems to have noticed, but if you look for it you will see it everywhere.
I just realized after reading the comments, that I am being repeating others thoughts, but oh well. That was quite profound Dalrock. Best line of the post.
Thanks for exploring this inversion that has crippled marriage in the culture, including Christian marriage.
Also: this will seem, to most any Westerner alive today, horribly unromantic, and stifling.
And yet, despite our veneration of it, romantic love is actually on the decline, viz. hookup culture, its zombie post-college persistence, and the divorce culture.
But one reason for this is egalitarianism. The pickup guys think they’re the first to crack the code of romantic love. They’re not. Take a man and a woman, marry them, have them faithfully live a Biblical marriage, and romantic love will bloom.
We sold marriage out for romantic love, but true marriage is what produces romantic love.
One of the most brilliantly reasoned analysis anywhere. And very well stated.
Ok see, I have a problem with this, because I tie in romantic love as proof of a woman’s capacity to demonstrate warmth, affection, compassion and empathy. If she doesn’t exhibit these traits before marriage, how could I expect her to demonstrate them after marriage? That’s taking quite a leap of faith.
Now if you say she would demonstrate them in other ways besides the notion of romantic love, I’d still wouldn’t be convinced, because I have seen a lot of women boast about how sweet and affectionate they are, proclaim how they try to live under Proverbs 31 ideals, volunteer for charities, etc., and still be an emotional brick when it comes to men. It’s like they’ve compartmentalized their emotions or something, and it’s very disconcerting to see how ubiquitous this behavior has become, at least amongst Christian women.
I wondered if someone would say this. I was also reminded of Dalrock’s admonition that a no one marry unless they are head over heels. I would love a post that reconciled the two. Of course, so long as the Christian standard of sexuality is honored and adhered to (i.e. no sex before marriage), is there anything to reconcile?
Elspeth, I think the reconciliation is there. “Puppy love” and “true love” are emotionally and physiologically identical, they happen because of biology, and marriage was created with the intent of channelling those feelings into a bond that, with proper care, and with the right behavior of the husband and the wife, can produce lasting love. Then, that lasting love is what allows couples to raise children in the best possible environment.
That’s why people always married young: to take advantage of the initial spark of romantic feelings into building a marriage and a safe place for whatever children may come down the road. We have truly strayed very, very far away from the initial intent.
Great article and insight Dalrock. I linked this to my pastor. It’ll probably take him a few days to get around to it, but I’m interested to see his thoughts on it.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if this way of thinking was shared by a few clergymen as well”
wouldn’t be surprised?! this is the baseline belief of the (false) pastors and clergy of most “churches” … bc that is what women want, and females rule the “churches” (as settings for human social interaction, not for woshipping God . . . like holding the Scout Awards Ceremony in the Holy Sanctuary of one’s church ahem)
look at what “christians” embrace — 70 MILLION copeis of “Left Behind” and similar tripe sold, about 1/3 of the book given over to soppy romantic blather to reel in the female purchasers, bc that’s female utopia, endless series’ of passionate, sexual hookups even when theyre in their forties and fifties
the 1930s – 1970s saw by far the greatest Romanticist explosion the world’s ever seen, far beyond the Renaissance, Cathari, Albigensian, and numerous Troubadour movements — all of which were satanically inspired, as modern Romance is also
it’s difficult for folks under age 50 to understand just how steeped western culture was in Romanticism durng the 1950s and 1960s . . . music and film from those eras give a little idea of the extent of this propagandistic coup
the Courtly Love, Chivalric, and Romanticist movements were (and are) rooted in paganism, goddess/woman worship, and gnosticism (i.e., they are ANTI-christian) and, exactly like Women’s Rights, are presented as unassailable “good things” bc after all, what kind of monster is against Love? corrolary, There’s No Excuse for Domestic Violence and if you dont agree, then you are FOR Domestic Violence and an Abuser, Criminal, etc (cue my fans)
the worst evils are always presented under covers of “love” and “protecting” etc, and Romanticism is an unconscious process, therefore firmly in the realm of feminine control and power, as the male’s role is one of duty, obedience, and sacrifice to his Lady (women) … creatures far, far above his lowly state, creatures whose moral and spiritual superiority must be acknowleged, obeyed, and defended
the love that (healthy, sane) males feel towards females was driven to extreme levels during the Romanticism of the past century, laying the groundwork for the takeover of the western nations by gynocracy … that deep Romanticism prepared men psychologically to accept our tyrant-matriarchies, as men now can “safely” deceive themselves into believing that their cowardice and collusion with the matriarchies is based on “love” (when, in reality, it’s based on fear and selfishness)
the “churches” in the past 20 years finally have caught up with the general population, and the baseline belief of the children who lead your churches is one of delusional, romantic love, not the lasting, and real, love described in Scripture
Romanticism = power and excitement for females, so they embrace it, tho it destroys everything, esp family and the lives of boys; for men, however, it is a world-view producing only betrayal, as it’s based on premises that are false, tho extremely popular
like its sister Feminism, Romanticism SEEMS very very good, in fact it FEELS just wonderful
in reality, it’s a death cult
Frank/Elspeth: Yes, I spoke hastily. That doesn’t mean it’s not true though. I’ll have to think about this. I liked what both of you said, as well as zykos’s response.
@Social Tags:
>How far back does this way of thinking go? I’m thinking the Greeks had a major hand in this. They seem to think people could be taken over by the gods (or the Ideal Forms in Plato’s system). We still get “furious.” 🙂
Many humans, even before Plato, said that spirits are more important than material objects. Plato, if I understand him, said that spirits are actually more *real* than material objects – but perhaps I’m projecting Indian philosophy onto Plato without justification.
Every pre-industrial, pre-civilized culture that I know of believed in spirits and possession by spirits.
The ancient world had some pockets of atheism, but they were brief anomalies. Also, many ancient thinkers approvingly cited by modern atheists were not arguing for atheism, but against the abuses of religion. Consider DIogenes: “When I look upon seamen, men of science, and philosophers, man is the wisest of all things. When I look upon priests, prophets, and interpreters of dreams, nothing is so contemptible as a man.” There’s a big difference between saying, “The priesthood is corrupt” and “There are no real spirits.”
The modern world has had an atheist phase that has lasted an unusually long time. I don’t think it will last; I think the next generation, or the one after that, will revert to the usual human pattern of believing in spirits as more real than material objects.
@SSM
Actually “if you arent the romance” describes your post much better
If your husband isnt romancing you, not divorcing is shameful …
Only a carousel riding slut & whore like Walsh tries to shame a married woman for not divorcing
Walsh sinks to new pathetic lows all the time …
@SSM re:why men still marry—romantic love is appealing to men, just as sex is appealing to women. And Dalrock’s post on the progressive debasing of marriage shows why it’s taken so long to get a reaction—frog-in-the-pot style, it’s been little things at a time. It doesn’t hurt the institution of marriage much if you talk up romantic love a lot…it doesn’t hurt much if you extend divorce justification to abuse…maybe what we need is no-fault divorce…then the 60’s hit and we turned up the engine with rampant premarital sex. I could go on, but of course you know the drill. It wasn’t sudden, but now it’s having impossible-to-ignore effects, a la MGTOW, etc.
To be honest, I don’t think obsession with romantic love is the problem. I think Dreher is nuts too to blame the rise of the sodomite mob on the breakdown of Christian marriage. This evil is being pushed by a malignant minority that is consolidating its grip on a public mind increasingly dominated by its media monopoly.
Women don’t really care about traditional romantic concepts. Is there anything romantic in popular music? Is some stupid diamond ring romantic? Is waiting to have a career romantic? Is getting drunk on the weekends romantic? That women find romanticism in today’s cultural productions, and think of fags as being “romantic” just shows they are stupid and perverted bitches.
Also Frank, re: the constantly “charitable” yet unfeeling woman: I would posit this comes from a refusal to actually submit to her husband.
“And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.”
“How far back does this way of thinking go? I’m thinking the Greeks had a major hand in this. They seem to think people could be taken over by the gods (or the Ideal Forms in Plato’s system). We still get “furious.”
In my current readings of the classics (haven’t gotten to the philosophy yet, only Homer and VIrgil), this is…. partially true, but misses the soul of the thoughts and values.
Men within ancient Greece were expected to feel emotions, yes. But in feeling them the goal was to live within the moment, not deny themselves, the triggering event, or their reaction to it. Then, once they had properly worked through their emotions, to react rationally and logically to the events.
To hold on to their emotions was considered one of two things: Either to be feminine or to be possessed by the Gods against your will. Neither was good, and was to be avoided. Hector apologizes to Achilles as much as his pride will allow him, citing that the gods drove him to such madness that led to the slaughter of thousands at the hands of their enemies. Helen spends the rest of her life atoning for the betrayal of the her people that led to the war. Odysseus’s trials are CONSTANT battles against the wills of many Gods, whom themselves are battling fate. Aeneas is nearly the same as Odysseus in many ways, save that rather than being held up as a role model of crafty behavior, Aeneas is held as a model of Devotion. It is when he is devoted to his fate, his goal, his mission, that he is able to abandon the feminine holding on to emotions and eschew the influence of Gods working against his good will.
So, yes and no. With a Christian viewpoint instead of a Greek Mythology viewpoint, it is very, very easy to see what kind of behaviors would lead towards a mortal man being able to avoid the influences of Satan.
And, as I’m sure any of the more classically educated men can point out, this is only from a bare, minimal beginning of a classical education. As such, I apologize for any inconsistencies or lack of depth/understanding I have – I’m only on my third book of such besides the mere skimming of Greek/Roman thought which I got through my ‘formal’ education in Theatre History classes and high school english.
Also, love in particular was usually considered a madness. Dionysus, God of theatre, revelry, love, and chaos. Aphrodite herself caused more wars between the Gods and morals than any other (to my knowledge). The classics stand as lessons on many things, but likely the most important and most frequent is that Love or Lust controlling your actions, by overriding your reason and logic, will almost always lead to hardship, madness, and death.
“gradients of romantic love”
I love my (soon-to-be-ex) husband but I’m not IN LOVE with him.
LOL
This is the way Western Civilization ends, at the whims of childish women.
“Take a man and a woman, marry them, have them faithfully live a Biblical marriage, and romantic love will bloom.”
Without chemistry or careful screening by the man, there is no romantic love
Men decide if a relationship works, without the carefully calculated logical selection of a male, there is no marriage
Which is why there are so many men MGTOW, submissive feminine women are a lost cause,
Too easy access to alpha cock, destroys a womans feminine submissive nature, making them unfit for even STR’s
Even Indians with arranged marriages, dont practise marriage for the sake of marriage
Ironically India used to have a culture of slapping women in public, for misbehaving in public, ie for dressing indecently or mouthing off at men …
The golden age of bitchy women slapping, as referred to by most zimmer frame driving indians …
@Frank:
“Ok see, I have a problem with this, because I tie in romantic love as proof of a woman’s capacity to demonstrate warmth, affection, compassion and empathy. If she doesn’t exhibit these traits before marriage, how could I expect her to demonstrate them after marriage? That’s taking quite a leap of faith.”
Frequently women display these qualities before marriage and then stop displaying these favorable qualities sometime after marriage. Is this the consensus of others??
You are right Dalrock, people don’t believe anymore that vows are sacred, vows make a marriage sacred but not love and sex. Then the marriage can make the love and sex sacred, moral as its supposed to be before it became degraded.
Well Mack, you are forgetting that men are just as into the notion of romantic love as women are. Dalrock even gave a prime example of that in his post.
The difference is that women tend to be so flighty and irresponsible that they torpedo their marriages and destroy the lives of their children in the absence of romantic love. Men are more inclined to stick with the commitment.
Neither of my statements on men and women is universally true, as there are women who stick in there and men who run off with other women in the throes of romantic love. It’s just a general observation and it seems that historically, the gender that has the most social, legal and/or financial incentive to “follow their hearts” are the ones that do so.
Yes, this is a really good observation.
We don’t need to look far to work out which gender has driven this change. There is a huge market for fiction about romantic love. Only women read these books.
I think that “falling in love” and “romantic love” (as distinct from other forms of love) are the emotional manifestations of sexual desire. Romantic love is held up as the gold standard of relationships, but it is really no more than women telling each other to follow their vagina tingles.
The dominant female narrative must deny this, however, otherwise it would look at the woman who divorces because she fell out of love, and bracket her with the unfaithful husband who has an affair. Somehow (as with the preferred mode of polygamy) the dominant narrative accepts the man’s preferred mode of sin as evil, while exalting the woman’s mode as good, in fact not a sin at all.
@SSM
I can’t see why men would agree to marry under these conditions, though.
Most men are not Roissy. Most men are, in PUA language, “average frustrated chumps”. When a woman expresses serious interest in a man, and he is having this experience for the first time at the age of 30, he will blow a fuse. Rationality will not apply.
I wish I could add to this Dalrock, but I can’t. All that I can say is Bravo. This should be required reading in every church in the West.
When we talk about “romantic love” it’s important to remember that what we’re talking about are feelings of love and the emotions and physical manifestations that accompany them.
1. Strong sexual attraction
2. Limerence
3. Near-obsession with the other person
4. Tingles/horniness
5. A near-inability to think rationally and logically in matters concerning the other person
6. Blinders to the other person’s faults and shortcomings
When you elevate “romantic love” (i.e. emotions and feelings), we assume that those feelings represent the truth and are to be the guiding star for all our lives’ decisions. This is why so many people in general and women in particular make decisions which essentially say “I was in love with him, but now I don’t feel those feelings. Ttherefore, I must not love him, or I didn’t really love him in the first place. Since I do not love him, I do not have to remain married to him.”
But this is wrong, because the heart can deceive; and we’re told not to make decisions based on feelings. Because feelings come and go. They are fleeting and transitory. A woman feels one way one day; and another way tomorrow; and yet another way the day after that.
Men are guilty of this too. As James noted above, a fully grown man is known to lose 50 IQ points upon gaining the interest of a sexually attractive woman.
@elspeth
Actually women torpedo their marriages in the absence of Alpha Masculine Behaviour
Women RATIONALISE lust for romance
In fact most women dont even know the concept of TRUE romance
Male romance is TRUE romance, which involves loyalty, honor etc., concepts most women dont understand, which is why they divorce in the millions
Women respect dishonor & disloyalty, precisely because of the emotional feedback, ie drama & social logic
Men getting suckered into romantic love, in a Patriarchial Structure doesnt matter
Men getting suckered into romantic love, in a feminist infested society, horrific
Men are the gatekeepers of relationships, which is why most men today refuse to marry & MGTOW
Submissive feminine women as a concept to aspire to, is only achievable if women stop riding alpha cock & stay virginal for their husbands
Yes you’ll miss out on mind blowing sex, but you’ll have a mind blowing relationship with a great husband
But without chemistry & the careful logical selection of a male, ie he decides to choose the woman, there is no marriage
Mwn have always held the power to decide if women are worth of marriage
With great resources comes great power
Something even working women will never understand
This is a concept modern society doesnt want women to know
Men decide if women are worthy of marriage
Women deciding who has sex, doesnt mean a thing
Resources & power will always be more valuable then sex
Hence men will always be superior to women
“I can’t see why men would agree to marry under these conditions, though.”
The average man has far less opportunity for sexual access and marries expecting this to change.
The average woman has experienced far more affirmation and opportunit for sex than the average man. When she marries, she expects him to continue that stream of affirmation.
Since the average man no longer attracts the average man, he feels like hes won the lottery when he finally lands a woman. He marries expecting ongoing sex, and is bewildered when she divorces him for no fault.
The average man has few choices. The average woman squanders most of her choices on delusional hypergamy.
The outcome is a marriage of compromise, inevitably ended by the woman.
The reality is (physical) sex naturally tends to create feelings of romantic love
For clarification of romantic love, is the information provided by Wikipedia sufficient for a description?
“Romance is the expressive and pleasurable feeling from an emotional attraction towards another person associated with love.”
A lot is inferred without providing a substantive definition and only a categorical name.
@ Thornstruck: I agree with Wiki that you can have romance without sex.
That said, most people today believe that the mere presence of emotional attraction towards another person gives them license to have sex, making the sex pure and right because it’s based on “real” feelings. And the deceptive and destructive circle continues, going on and on until romance and sex become viewed as one and the same.
@Mack:
I have been married a long time, LOL. Part of growing up is not needing constant affirmation. Women can and should grow to the point where constant pats on the head and drama and silliness is required to feel alive.
My husband has spent his entire adult life with me. If that isn’t enough for me to know that he loves me, then I need to have my head examined, no?
I suppose most women do need their heads examined, 🙂 .
It’s important to remember, Romance is a rationalisation of biology, a humanisation of a persons biochemistry
It’s strictly speaking a fictional concept
The biology is real, but as a concept its fictional
The effect of love is in fact far stronger on men, precisely because they’re unable to process or handle strong, spiking emotions
Men dont have a drop in I.Q, they cant handle the emotions generated
As men arent equipped to handle the irrational emotional illogic
Which is why in game, or PUA men are desensitised & told to stop bonding with sluts & whores, ie oneitis
@elspeth
I have no idea what part of my post you’re referring to
Theres nothing wrong with wanting drama
Its how you want that drama, thats how a wife makes a great marriage
Of course most women dont understand how to want drama from their husbands …
i have no interest in getting married, but i respect the sanctity of it. and those that choose to get married would never be judged by me. i NEVER lie about wanting to be in a relationship. and i honestly care about the women i get involved with.
i caught some flack over at SSM when i was accused of being a womanizer because of exploits back from high school. how gauche. and i simply commented that one thing that really bothers me with certain Christians is the “my practicing is more devout than yours.”
i thought we weren’t supposed to judge. but to treat each other as brothers and sisters.
Very good posting. Needs one little expansion.
By making sex, marriage and even child raising conditional on the emotional state of the relevant woman, all control of sex, and marriage, and child raising is put into her hands, and only her hands. …along with all the various resources that sex, and marriage, and children naturally entail. The whole ball of wax gets rolled up and dropped into her lap, ready or not.
Is there a name for this, I wonder?
Paging Rollo. Cleanup on Aisle 4…
I’m not a christian but my family and friends largely are. What Dalrock expressed here is what I’ve been saying the subject of gay marriage for a long time. It’s romantic love or pleasure marriages (as women define romance as things that sexually stimulate them) that destroyed marriage. Whining about gay marrage is like crying that the outhouse is on fire after the house has already burned down.
This of course also led me to the conclusion that arranged marriages work best as adults can generally pick better mates than children can. I know a couple of women who had arranged marriages (both Islamic) and they are quite happy with them.
Why do men continue to marry? Because they are operating under the false assumption marriage 1.0 is still in affect. It’s illusion vs reality on every level. Often enough the illusion is the false belief there is no other way or no better way
I’m totally confused, because I don’t know what “Romantic Love” is. It is not any of the four loves C.S. Lewis listed in the work of the same name. It might be something like infatuation or “puppy love” which is not a “love”.
Let me try to feel (pun intended) for a definition. There are parasites and symbiotes. But the idea is MY emotional fulfillment. I feel something pleasant from whatever “this” is. And thus marriage is subject to me continuing to be able to extract more emotionally than I give. It is possible with symbiosis – that is what the free market exchange is about – you and I want what each other has so we exchange and are both happier.
Storge is the love of the pitiable – it is natural but often misused and is NOT romantic.
Eros might be closest, but there were romances that delayed sex. Getting turned on isn’t romance, but it is below “romance”, both in hierarchy and in terms of profundity.
Philea is friendship, which is better in a marriage, but even best friends don’t feel romance.
Agape is the height of love, being the will of the person no matter what the feeling, but that means it transcends feelings of Romance, even through pain and sacrifice.
The old definition of marriage is a mutual exchange of Agape and from there hoping things will grow if they had not already done so, but the purpose and end were different. “I take this (wo)man”. One must have Agape in some form for everyone including enemies, but that does not turn into a commitment. I take this PERSON in their entirety. And it is me, my decision.
But in romance, where does sex come in? The carousel might be attempting to start fires, but there is a limited supply of kindling and flint. It might be the ultimate rationalization that someone thinks they can’t know if they will have romance BEFORE they have sex.
I’ve noted before that the questions that used to be asked were about how well the man would make a Father, and how well the woman a Mother, but those were discarded at about that time. This “Romance” is what replaced it.
I also don’t think “true love” or any permanence has replaced it. That died with no-fault divorce which has the perverse effect of causing (pagan) couples to cohabitate specifically to avoid a divorce, thinking that the breakup would be easier.
It might be like a drug, Meth and Cocaine make people feel good. Really good. For no external or objective reason. Somehow it is acceptable that another person can take the place? Would they be the pusher or user (it would be mutual). We used to think nothing of Cigarettes (see youtube for Flintstones and I Love Lucy and others). Perhaps “sex and Romance” is the new drug the Surgeon General lauds instead of condemns. Addictive, causes health (and emotional problems), destroys you, but we are paid not to say anything.
Passion = good.
Drama? not so much.
James said:
@SSM
I can’t see why men would agree to marry under these conditions, though.
Most men are not Roissy. Most men are, in PUA language, “average frustrated chumps”. When a woman expresses serious interest in a man, and he is having this experience for the first time at the age of 30, he will blow a fuse. Rationality will not apply.
Pretty much what I was going to say. A few years back, I asked a 30 year old friend of mine what dating was like for him and his friends. He said that basically, you hang out with your buddies and through your extended social circle events like birthday parties, brunch, BBQs etc, you meet a woman and you hit it off and start dating. You date for a while and get that regular sex until finally all the dating drama is too much and you break up for good. At this point, you get no sex except with yourself until lightening strikes and you repeat the process. After a couple cycles, you get tired of it and ask the one you’re with to marry hoping that the regular sex will continue and that you’ve both matured enough that you won’t end up divorced in 18 months.
Additionally, as my young divorced friend said “I thought I had this part of my life handled.”
“After a couple cycles, you get tired of it and ask the one you’re with to marry hoping that the regular sex will continue and that you’ve both matured enough that you won’t end up divorced in 18 months.”
Exactly why men need to get out there & learn to pick up women
Choice is power, when it comes to sex
Elspeth
Passion = good.
Drama? not so much.
+1
Problem: the emotional porn industry explicitly links the two, such that “Drama = Passion”.
Young women and not so young women who consume that stuff over time wind up with that falsehood in their brain, deep in expectations. So in time, in any relationship, there’s not enough drama, ergo (says the false little ‘bot), his passion must be gone. So Drama must be created…
This process can be seen write large across the society, in most demonstrations put on by True Believers.
“Drama” is just another version of “temper tantrum”. IMO. YMMV.
And PS: For at least some thinking men, Drama erodes trust, and real passion relies upon trust.
So what is all that Drama actually doing in the long term?
Yes. Exactly.
@tz2026
Why? Why is romance without sex “higher”, more “profound” or pure? Sex within marriage is both profound and pure. Romantic love without sex (intentionally) is in contradiction to biblical teaching on marriage. Is unconsummated romantic love outside of marriage more profound and pure, even “higher” than the sex and romantic love experienced within biblical marriage?
@Red, re: “Whining about gay marriage is like crying that the outhouse is on fire after the house has already burned down.”
Funny you say that. I was reading one of the many freaking-out-at-same-sex-marriage articles in the National Review, year-and-a-half, maybe 2 years ago. I went on and commented pretty much saying just exactly that. Tossed in some data which I’m sure was fruitless because they were already numb to it, added my protests that the crowd was up in arms over the wrong problem and declared the horse (marriage) dead, while the crowd was all in a fuss over the dead horse.
Not. Well. Received. I recall some patronizing reply from another commentator along the lines of “yeah sure maybe when we’ve taken care of gay marriage we’ll get around to no fault divorce” (yes – that seemed like a valid point to the person making it) and “obviously you aren’t in our camp anyway”.
Christianity and The Church are not the same thing. Churches may have abandoned Christianity, but Christianity itself hasn’t changed.
“There is a new sexual morality which modern Christians and non Christians alike have embraced in the place of biblical marriage, and it isn’t centered around overt hedonism.”
The truth is, it is about hedonism to a degree, and the thrust (pardon the pun) behind much of the gay marriage issue. Same sex couples obviously aren’t all that concerned with marriage of the husband and wife variety. What they are interested in is using the adjective ‘marriage’ to legitamise their sexual proclivities. The first day same sex couples could call themselves ‘married’ in California they didn’t marry as a Husband and Wife, but quickly changed the marriage contract to read as Partner A and Partner B. In other words, they didn’t even see themselves as interchangeable with husband and wife marriages, but they wanted the ‘approval’ that they perceived would come with marriage.
So, if you want the best spin on it, we have prove that same sex partners have consciences and a concern for peer-perception. So they’re not sociopaths. The question though, is whether their methodologies actually produce their expectations. A partnership of random interchangeables A & B will not in the end grant the legitimacy that is sought. No more than any couch potato, who having participated in a class action lawsuit to be treated as a professional athlete, would find themselves admired the same as a professional athlete who made it their by physical talent rather than couch sitting.
(sorry for the typos… blame it on string of consciousness phoenetics)
I find the whole idea behind relationships and marriage today to be incredibly depressing. As a 28 year old I can’t say I know what it was like before Feminism hit town, but today man has become no more than just another of her gadgets, and holds no more use to a woman than the latest iPhone, Handbag, Pair of shoes etc. She may enjoy you (iPhone 4) in the here and now, but she is always on the lookout for a new model, and that’s the reality of it.
Even the most optimistic of people behind relationships and marriage today cannot deny that they are constantly having to ‘game’ their wives, and there is always some bullshit psychological angle you have to play. I never went along with this because I thought the energy used on doing so could be far better spent on pursuing other interests, yet still, you do get a brief taste for it once in a while and wonder how great it would be if there were times when people would look back on that first spark and fight to rekindle it, as opposed to just hopping onto the next fashion trend.
I don’t live in America but have always taken a keen interest in the ‘Alpha fucks, beta bucks’ slogan that is tossed around here. Only advice I would have for betas is to move to Scandinavia, as long as you have the bucks or some kind of prestige that will make her the queen bee within her social group then you are set. I’d say if anything men are the ones who operate a lot on raw emotions. Women feel what they want to feel, but at the end of the day all they care about is what other women think.
That for me is what I find most depressing. That really you have to upgrade yourself to the point of never being able to get surpassed, just to keep her attention. Better off making a shitload of money and getting yourself within those social circles by the time you’ve mastered a craft. If I ever married I’d want to marry someone who had roughly equal to what I had or more. Alimony laws don’t necessarily favor women, only the party who makes less money, so take away that risk factor if you can.
>> The question though, is whether their methodologies actually produce their expectations. A partnership of random interchangeables A & B will not in the end grant the legitimacy that is sought.
It’s just going to drive straight men away from marriage the same way the term gay was redefined into a slur. My new motto for explaining why I’m not married: Marriage is for faggots.
Two thumbs way up. That goes for your comment above also.
@ MackPUA
…& stay virginal for their husbands…Yes you’ll miss out on mind blowing sex, but you’ll have a mind blowing relationship with a great husband
There are many flaws to this statement, but mainly:
How would a virgin judge how good the sex is with her husband? She has no other point of reference.
Very good post Dalrock.
Most people understand love as a benevolent feeling. The early Christians did not believe in any such bullshit, rather, they understood love as acting in the way God would want them to act, regardless of their own feelings What marked the Christian from the pagan is the possession of caritas which is very badly translated in English as love.
Matthew 5:44 is a refutation of the idea of Christian love as internally generated feeling.
@Youhavemypermission.
No man wants to marry an alpha widow.
@Youhavemypermission
The girl would have a good handful of decades to practice with her husband. Problem solved. Next!
Spot on and well said.
@ slumlord
@ Steven
I think you completely misunderstood my point. The point was, it is good to be a virgin for both the husband and wife, for many reasons, but one of which is that the sex will always be good* since they don’t have prior experience(s) to judge their present experience.
* Unless for some other reason, one loses attraction for the other.
We have identified the mechanics of seduction. And the seduction of these mechanics is harmful to identity.
At some point in the past, someone encouraged you to bind all these articles (literally or metaphorically) up and sell them as a book. Put me down as a customer if that happens. This is a great article, one which puts the finger on a difficult-to-encapsulate subject and deconstructs it precisely.
@Youhavemypermission- In the end, a husband and wife that love each other, and spend lots of time together are going to be better in bed for each other than 99.9% of the random strangers out there. If they aren’t in the beginning they will be over the course of the marriage.
How would a virgin judge how good the sex is with her husband? She has no other point of reference.
I’m sure the sex will suck the first time. Ever bang a virgin? I have. It’s not all that much fun.
Five months in, they’ll both know the equipment like a couple of pros and they’ll be having a great time. Two years in, they’ll have their union cards on the machinery, and minds will be blown on a regular basis.
I don’t want to be too much of a negative nelly to the up-and-coming playas who hang out here, but variety ain’t all it’s cracked up to be. There’s something to be said for an old school monogamous marriage, in which you grow up together, know the others likes and dislikes, and have an emotional connection. A year ago I wouldn’t have thought I’d ever think this way, but the game gets tired after a while.
Regards, Boxer
I might shift some of these ideas around, but maintain Dal’s basic argument.
The primary enabler of gay marriage was termination of the idea that a marriage is a union formed to raise children, which morphed into the idea that a marriage is based on “love” and that a couple should enjoy the benefits of marriage regardless of the intent towards children.
The questions from the female justices during the hearings on DOMA were entirely about the economic aspects of marriage, vis a vis, recognition within the states, yet no recognition by the federal government which allows the majority economic benefits of marriage, such as taxes, insurance, etc. Justice Elena Kagan questioned or stated “I might ask then what kind of marriage is this”, meaning if the economic benefits are withheld then why would one even consider it a “marriage”.
And in reality, even mention of “love” within this context is almost absurd, certainly not even necessary. Therefore, in this context, any two adults that wished to come into union for the economic benefits require no litmus test of “love” and only need to express interest in doing so. So we have defeat of marriage as a union to raise children born to the biological mother and biological father as the primary social reason for the existence of the institution.
Women cannot allow that definition to stand because it imposes the importance of men on both the activity of raising children and elevates their importance in the lives of women.
Second, Bonding is a biological reality, “love” is a social invention, a little play and paraphrase on the famous Margaret Mead quote. Bonding occurs as a chemical mechanism in the brains of men and women as a result of sex. “Love” is a psychological projection that is a social construct tied to attraction.
This is key here. Bonding is not necessarily a function of physical attraction. It is the result of sex. And sex alone.
Dopamine production occurs during sex in both the men and women, the man produces AVG via orgasm, and the women produces oxytocin from manipulation of the nipples and from the penis touching the cervix, which drops down during intercourse. Smell is important in this imprinting of the bonding on the two partners. A three chamber test of mice with a bonded pair show that the pair will tend to stay together in the same chamber were sexual activity occurred and return to the same chamber if separated then reunited. This is sort of why new couples stay in the bedroom so much in the early phases of a relationship. Often the living room seems like a foreign land and, especially the male, hastens back into the bedroom. This is why “sleeping on the couch is a punishment” (unless you have DirectTV, netflix, and XBoxLive tied only to the living room devices). (Note, if you wish to fight OneItis, get out of the bedroom after sex. Literally get up and get out. Go in another room and fight the imprinting of that room and the smell of both the sex and your ‘bonding female’. Notice the etiquette in hookup culture is that after sex, the one that does not live at that location must leave, soon)
There are some interesting facts about this. With sex in non-bonded males, first the D1 dopamine center fires, in the presence of AVG, then the D2 dopamine center fires, also in the presence of AVG and bonding occurs. If the bonded male has extrapair sex, the D1 dopamine center will fire, but the D2 center will not because the chemicals produced in the prior bonding with inhibit it and therefore bonding with the extrapair sexual partner will not occur. Interesting no? Explains that “But I don’t love her like I love you” excuse when caught in “extrapair” bonding. It’s biologically true.
Second, upon bonding, stress agents build up in the brain of men, yet are inhibited from producing depression and pain in the man, as long as he remains with his bonded female partner. Continued sex with her and the smell of her, keep the effects of these chemicals at bay. But if he is separated from her, then the lack of AVG and the marker of her scent, will then induce a forlorn sense of depression, apathy, and physical pain, heartbreak. The metaphor given by the researcher was that it is as if the a bullet is placed in a gun, and the gun is placed to the head of the man, yet does not fire as long as he remains with his bonded female.
The interesting thing is that the research I read, said nothing about any coercive mechanism in women that is similar to that in men. I assume that since, historically, regular sex terminated in pregnancy then nothing should be necessary. But then remove that probability of pregnancy, then any idea of permanence in the bonding on the part of women obviously has no biological reason to continue. The research also said nothing about the effect of extrapair sex in women having some mechanism to inhibit the formation of bonding as it does in men. It didn’t say it didn’t. But the article did specifically go through the specifics of the chemical mechanics that inhibit the formation of the bond due to extrapair sex in men, only in men.
Our ancestors understood this and withheld sex until marriage, and enforced sex only within the context of marriage exactly because sex is the agent of bonding. It is entirely not disingenuous for Roissy to claim that he “loved” many of the women with whom he had sex. It also entirely explains why so many “arranged” marriages work, provided that strong pre-marital sex prohibitions are in place and observed. Attraction is not a prior condition of bonding. Sex is.
Whether this occurred through evolution or by design, and actually is a very strong case for the idea of design, those children born to fathers that are, literally, chemically coerced and rewarded to be “proximate” to their bonded female have a far greater chance of survival than those children born to fathers that are not. “Proximation” being the term that rat researchers use to determine bonded pairs, the bonded female, when introduced in a three chamber environment with her bonded male and another male, will stay “proximate” to the bonded male.
Now love is basically, attraction reinforced through cultural means. I wrote a long essay about it on Rationale Male and how it was “invented” in the late 12th century and was actually extramarital. Marriage was an obligation of duty and was usually political or based on land. You married a fief, and a wife was thrown in with the bargain.
But “love” was the idea of selfless devotion (of the man to the woman), separate from both marriage and sex. Of course that last part was nonsense that allowed all parties to circumvent prohibitions on adultery. It percolated up into the Catholic church in the 13th and 14th centuries and became the cultural ideal that it is in the 19th century reinforced by modern media cultures throughout the 20th as being the supreme human emotion. It was a precursor, a precondition to marriage until constraints on sex were removed, and now is totally independent of marriage.
And as Dalrock states “love” only becomes an issue in the realm of sex outside of marriage.
Going back to the earlier mention of the invention of “love”. It is a creation of women to enforce the Feminine Imperative.
Women are the love and they give it those men who prove they are worthy of their love. And those men worthy of it through acts of high character. And women are the arbiter of the value of those acts. Only actions done by men as acts to be worthy of the love of a woman are ennobled. Secrecy was essential and if the love came into the open then it died (convenient for a cheating woman, no?). And a gentlemen never demanded sex as a prize of love (very convenient for any woman, no?). He loved for the sake of the love and the fact he was recipient of the love should be the only reward a true gentlemen would seek. (Ditto. No?)
So then enter commercialism and the industrial revolution into the historical picture along with the end of landed gentry and “love” leaves the realm of extramarital emotions and becomes the precursor of Marriage. But once again, the Feminine Imperative dictates. Commitment and fidelity work in the benefit of women that she gains support from the man as the price he pays, rather more correct, the tribute he pays to prove he is worthy of her love. And this contract is totally enforced by society.
I was watching a movie that was maybe late 50s. A wildcat oil man is trying to convince his son to control himself and reap the benefits of the future the father has prepared for him. He is positioning for his wildcat oil company to be bought by “one of the big eastern companies. And son, I can get you in, but you have work with me.”
There is a girl in the picture and the father implores “Son, you are not doing anything you would ashamed of are you? You know if you get that girl ‘in trouble’, you are gonna have to do the ‘right thing’ and marry her? So don’t do anything stupid, son.”
I only overhead this fragment of the movie and have no idea if the boy did ‘anything stupid” but the look that he had on his face was that “he was in love” and torn between the dictates of his father and his “love” for the girl. But the point is, that even in the face of such a great future, a family would not allow their son to abandon his obligations and just tell the girl “too bad for you”. And in the early 70s, my family would have insisted on the exact same behavior from me and would never have allowed me to shirk that responsibility.
So then now, “morality” that is conferred upon “sex with love”, the idea, particularly from women, that “love” makes sex moral is completely due to the mandate that the man will reciprocate the “love” the women gives him, sex actually. And she will receive the concomitant commitment that she wishes, as her tribute for allowing him the gift of her magic vagina, and the “rights and benefits there unto pertaining” (I got this wording from my promotion warrants while in the Marines).
So the reality is that this is all horseshit. It is the tip of the spear of the Feminine Imperative, the focus of all the social and cultural conditioning to use sex as a weapon, at the benefit of women and at the expense of the men.
“Love” is the trump card to escape moral responsibility for physical desire. “I was in love” is an acceptable excuse among the Female Social Matrix which actually means “I found alpha c*ck and I threw my vagina at it. Of course, he was a scum and didn’t honor the gift of my magic vagina. But I am not to blame. He is. I gave him ‘love’ he was supposed to return commitment like a true gentleman.”
So the outrage at Roissy is that he is not honoring the bargain. But there is no outrage towards women when they honor nothing other than what works for them, here and now.
Inevitably, because of biological reasons there will be bonding when sex occurs. But without the institution of marriage then the results of that bonding are, as they say in science, “undetermined”.
This of course also led me to the conclusion that arranged marriages work best as adults can generally pick better mates than children can. I know a couple of women who had arranged marriages (both Islamic) and they are quite happy with them.
Sorta goes without saying around here. When I was 19, had I any desire to be married, I’d have picked that cute girl with the great ass and pink hair, who used to wear high boots. She was awesome in the sack, and a roaring drunk.
The boring chick with freckles, who might have been faithful to me over the long haul, wasn’t someone I would have even considered.
I’m actually saying the opposite of what everyone thinks I’m saying – it is good that a husband or wife has no other point of reference.
Let me see if I can be less confusing with an example.
Scenario 1: Virgin Wife
Wife is given a vanilla ice-cream the first time in her life. Lets say most normal people will enjoy the ice cream. She goes on believing vanilla ice cream is the best thing ever for the rest of her life – this is her reality because she’s never tasted anything else.(Although this can be affected by the whispers, hypergamy, etc).
Scenario 2: Whore Wife
Woman is given chocolate ice cream. Then later, she marries the vanilla ice cream. Not satisfied – not as good as chocolate ice cream (not to mention she cannot pair-bond).
My reply was to this statement:
…& stay virginal for their husbands…Yes you’ll miss out on mind blowing sex, but you’ll have a mind blowing relationship with a great husband
The point is, the virgin wife is not missing out on anything.
Just to clarify my position – I believe sex should only be in marriage.
It’s late, so I haven’t read the entirety of the posts here. But I wanted to post something here in the context of this article that I posted at Roissy’s a long time ago.
Romantic love, and romance in general, doesn’t exist. It is a fleeting feeling that is intended to make a person commit to another WHEN THEY HAVE NO REASON TO DO SO. It’s akin to “Beginner’s Luck”. It’s a feeling of excitement FOR NO REASON, about entering into an intimate relationship with another person.
Anybody who has been married (under the traditional sense, not the new version), or seen what a marriage is supposed to look like, will tell you that real, actual love takes a lifetime to build. You see it in elderly couples who have given their entire lives to each other. You see it in the relationships where each spouse has sacrificed for the other. That’s what love is. Giving. Not financially, but of yourself. Even this is at odds with the current idea, where you have certain needs that should be met and a spouse is the easiest way to fulfill them routinely.
Romance has NOTHING to do with it. It’s an unreal feeling, fleeting, that is only provided by God to show a person what they could have if they work for the next lifetime with the other person to get back to that level.
But the West teaches that romance is love. So when that fleeting feeling of excitement and elation is removed, people believe they no longer love their spouse, so they split. In the short term, the article may be correct. But like every other thing of “Flash, No Substance”, ultimately abandoning the Judeo-Christian ideal of marriage and supplanting it for the new one will disappoint and lead to ruin. This is why marriage is so badly misunderstood and why it often fails now.
I wish people would actually consider ideas before believing them. Bad ideas have a tendency to look amazing if you don’t think about them to hard. Unfortunately, on the subject of romance, most people, including “experts”, don’t seem to want to think about it.
This is an excellent post as others have noted. The conflation of ‘romantic love’ or rather feelings of romance with actual love is probably one the key factors in the decline of marriage in the west.
This is not to suggest that the irrationality of romance should be countered by ‘logic’. That is simply to err in the other direction and substitute one false god for another — in this case the god of reason and the autonomous self. The battle between these two gods is, in a sense, at the heart of the cultural struggle in the west over the last 400 years. If women are prone to the idolatry of feelings, men are prone to the idolatry of logic, but make no mistake, they are both false gods.
The actual traditional view and scriptural one is that love is both demonstrated and effectuated through action. The Bible does not after all suggest that Christ made a logical calculation that his death would be the most effective means of redemption, nor that he felt such overwhelming feelings of ‘love’ for people that he couldn’t help himself. It says that his love demonstrated itself in the action of willing crucifixion. Neither his ‘feelings’ nor his ‘rationality’ are at the forefront (though they are not denied).
@Boxer
Its cos you never saw that boring freckled chick nekkid …
Boring chicks arent the problem
The problem is most chicks have repellant attitudes, or are ridiculously dysfunctional
Most guys want hot chicks, but most guys also dump hot chicks with no personality, instantly
These Chicks with no personality, eventually develop a easily used chump radar
Thees chicks then go onto rape & destroy men in divorce
Which is why men have to screen when THEY decide who’s worthy
Obviously these are the smart chicks
The dumber chicks whine incessantly about how there are no good men available … they usually mean no suckers who’ll put up with their dysfunctional loony tunes, wack job personalities …
The reality is most white knights, magnina’s only support women on paper, when it comes to reality, theyre too busy orbiting the fat ugly chick’s & other warpigs, or pining for some looser welfare crack whore
Pingback: The One Ring To Rule Over Him | The Society of Phineas
@YHMP
“…& stay virginal for their husbands…Yes you’ll miss out on mind blowing sex, but you’ll have a mind blowing relationship with a great husband
The point is, the virgin wife is not missing out on anything. ”
I was referring to the general outlier, of course virginal women have greater sex, via bonding to their husband for life
Women pine biologically for years for the guy who took their virginity
The optimal state of serial monogamy, is a virginal bride
A virginal woman experiences better sex, through bonding with the partner
A slut or a whore, only has the orgasm, it’s a meaningless experience
A woman expresses millions of years of evolution, when a virgin bonds with a husband for life
None-virginal women are 2nd hand goods … none virginal women are biologically useless for marriage or children
Which is WHY they use men as walking wallets & abort their children in the millions …
When it comes to virginity …
Women never really value the things important to them, unless a man bitch slaps them with a cold hard dose of reality
A virgin getting pumped & dumped, gets bitch slapped by reality for years after
This is WHY western women are despised
The though of a virginal woman getting pumped & dumped revolts & enrages most ppl
The fact a western woman wants to be pumped & dumped, as a virgin, proves how complete western women have become sluts & whores
Theyre absolutely useless for bonding
Learn game, pump & dump them
You were misinformed about judging. Of course we are to judge behavior. It’s the state of someone’s salvation or lack of it that is God’s alone to judge. And treating each other as brother and sister – go look up Christian “fraternal correction”. (I leave finding the relevant bible passages that affirm these points as an exercise for the student.)
You’re right to be bothered by that. Maybe one of those “certain Christians” can point out where in Scripture or Sacred Tradition they found the idea that the one who puts on the biggest show of devout practice wins. I do recall that Jesus taught that we are to fast but not to draw undue attention to our fasting (and by extension, this applies to all our practices considered devout).
Men, command your daughter to sew that on a sampler. Then frame it and put it on her bedroom wall.
Um, the origin of romans is pretty murky.
Let’s start with the greeks. The Greeks had a form of courtly love, It was homosexual and pedaristic. To love a woman was not seen as manly but the kind of thing that a weakling would do. This led to at one end the Thebian band where lovers chained themselves together before they went into battle (a more extreme version of “with your sheild or on it”).
This ideal existed right through the ancient period, and is one of the reasons Paul used homosexuality as an illustration of perverting what is good (love) way from its proper path — it was bloody common.
————
Now, that version of love did not survive the Northern invasions of the 4th century AD. The Germans were fervent heterosexualists. But the ideas of courtly love were transmuted at the beginning of the renaissance by the Troubadours who took the Arthurian legends and glorified and ustified adultery for the purposes of love. Guinivere left her boring husband for the pure knight, Lancelot, because he was a bigger challenge. We not have feelings being seen as an excuse to oathbreak.
————-
The church did not like that. Then or now. to quote from earlier in the thread
We don’t need to go into neurobiology here, or the mechanics of the act. The question has to be framed in terms of integrity and oathbreaking. In our acceptance of cheap divorce, we have instututioanlised the breaking of oaths, and cheapened the value of our word.
In a blog article, I made the following observation about marriage and sex being based on romantic love:
There is simply nothing left for the definition of marriage other than feelings of love. Since these are abstract and fleeting, there is now an attempt to make them concrete by enshrining them in law. However, laws based on shifting emotions will inevitably empower one group of people to oppress another in order to avoid having their feelings hurt or their sensibilities offended.
I feel that this is where the cultural is heading.
Right. You can’t miss what you never had. I thought my first wife (also the first woman I had sex with) was great in bed. Had we stayed together the rest of our lives, I would have continued thinking so and enjoying it every time. It wasn’t until I had some more experience that I realized she was actually kinda boring. As soon as your N>1, you’re bound to start making comparisons; and once you realize that Betty is more exciting than Alice, you can’t help wondering if there’s a Carol out there who would be even better than those.
“The fact a western woman wants to be pumped & dumped, as a virgin, proves how complete western women have become sluts & whores
Theyre absolutely useless for bonding
Learn game, pump & dump them”
…these words…these are the only words for a modern Western man to live by anymore…nothing else makes sense…
@ Mark Minter:
“Love” is the trump card to escape moral responsibility for physical desire. “I was in love” is an acceptable excuse among the Female Social Matrix which actually means “I found alpha c*ck and I threw my vagina at it. Of course, he was a scum and didn’t honor the gift of my magic vagina. But I am not to blame. He is. I gave him ‘love’ he was supposed to return commitment like a true gentleman.”
Good point. If the man explains that he was in love too, then he is a swine for not committing. If on the other hand he was not in love, he is a swine for taking advantage of the woman’s feelings. So when a woman says “I did it because I was in love”, she is awarding herself a “get out of jail free” card for following her tingles, as well as inviting us to blame the man.
If my son ever decides to walk the plank of marriage, I will require from the young lady’s family a sizable dowry of either cash or real estate as a hedge against our cultures current dysfunctional feminist construct.
Dear Social Tags,
You write, “Like so many deep questions I run into, I keep coming back to “What has Athens got to do with Jersusalem”? Are the Greek forms of thought corrupted yeast that is infecting the Christian bread?
I wonder if we see romantic love in other cultures not impacted by the Greeks? India? China? Africa? Anybody have any insights into this?”
Actually Homer teaches against adultery and basing decisions on “love.” As he shows that the love between Paris and Helen leads her to commit adultery and cause the entire Trojan War.
When Agamemnon is off fighting, his wife takes on a new “lover” who kills him when he gets home.
And too, the only happy ending is that of Odysseus an Penelope. Odysseus could stay forever young with a goddess, but he chooses to get back to Penelope, thusly saving his son too. Penelope stays faithful for twenty years during Odysseus’s absence. Both Odysseus and Penelope see “love” as that which is based on a higher ideal, which affords them faith over two decades, and an ultimate reunion.
So yes, the Biblical messages of the rewards of virtue, honor, and morality are there.
Odysseus himself states, “Fair dealing leads to greater profit in the end.”
To see some connections between Athens an Jerullaem, read this: “Book Description
Publication Date: August 1, 2001
Although the essential books of Western civilization are no longer central in our courses or in our thoughts, they retain their ability to energize us intellectually, says Jeffrey Hart in this powerful book. He now presents a guide to some of these literary works, tracing the main currents of Western culture for all who wish to understand the roots of their civilization and the basis for its achievements. Hart focuses on the productive tension between the classical and biblical strains in our civilization, between a life based on cognition and one based on faith and piety. He begins with the Iliad and Exodus, linking Achilles and Moses as Bronze Age heroic figures. Closely analysing texts and illuminating them in unexpected ways, he moves on to Socrates and Jesus, who “internalized the heroic”, continues with Paul and Augustine and their Christian synthesis, addresses Dante, Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Moliere, and Voltaire, and concludes with the novel as represented by Crime and Punishment and The Great Gatsby. Hart maintains that the dialectical tensions suggested by this survey account for the restlessness and singular achievements of the West and that the essential books can provide the substance and energy currently missed by both students and educated readers.” – http://www.amazon.com/Smiling-Through-Cultural-Catastrophe-Education/dp/0300087047/
What you should be asking, Social Tags, is what Athens has to do with Western science, technology, and freedom, which you are using to post your messages here. 🙂
Read this book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Founders-Classics-American-Enlightenment/dp/0674314263/
“Is our Greek and Roman heritage merely allusive and illusory? Or were our founders, and so our republican beginnings, truly steeped in the stuff of antiquity? So far largely a matter of generalization and speculation, the influence of Greek and Roman authors on our American forefathers finally becomes clear in this fascinating book-the first comprehensive study of the founders’ classical reading.
Carl J. Richard begins by examining how eighteenth-century social institutions in general and the educational system in particular conditioned the founders to venerate the classics. He then explores the founders’ various uses of classical symbolism, models, “antimodels,” mixed government theory, pastoralism, and philosophy, revealing in detail the formative influence exerted by the classics, both directly and through the mediation of Whig and American perspectives. In this analysis, we see how the classics not only supplied the principal basis for the U.S. Constitution but also contributed to the founders’ conception of human nature, their understanding of virtue, and their sense of identity and purpose within a grand universal scheme. At the same time, we learn how the classics inspired obsessive fear of conspiracies against liberty, which poisoned relations between Federalists and Republicans.
The shrewd ancients who molded Western civilization still have much to teach us, Richard suggests. His account of the critical role they played in shaping our nation and our lives provides a valuable lesson in the transcendent power of the classics.” –from amazon book page
Also read this: “Book Description
Publication Date: October 16, 2009
This lively and engaging book is the only popular work to explore the profound impact of Ancient Greece and Rome on the Founding Fathers. The classical education they imbibed as young students inspired them to undertake the American Revolution and influenced their approach to a host of constitutional and practical issues crucial to the shaping of the new American republic. Recounting the stirring stories the founders encountered in their favorite histories of Greece and Rome, renowned scholar Carl J. Richard explores what they learned from these vivid tales and how they applied these lessons to their own heroic quest to win American independence and establish a durable republic. Richard explains how the founders learned the importance of individual rights from the absence of those rights in Sparta, the superiority of republican government to monarchy from the Greek victory over the Persians, the perils of democracy from the instability of Athens, the need for a strong central government from the fall of Greece to Macedon and Rome, the importance of virtue to the success of a republic from early Rome, the need for eternal vigilance against ambitious individuals from the fall of the Roman republic, and the preciousness of liberty from its destruction by the Roman emperors. Crucial to the decisions that shaped the United States, these lessons remain invaluable today for every citizen concerned with America’s future course.”
“Actually women torpedo their marriages in the absence of Alpha Masculine Behaviour.”
No.
Women use misandrist laws for cash and profit.
“Game” is no going to fix that.
Lacking restoration of equal access to justice there is nothing on God’s green earth that is going to change.
God laid out the plan to escape Babylonian spiritual death in the Old Testament,by proper
punishment of soul destroying physical fornications.
It’s quite simple,go back to Old Testament law,the same law that inspired our original freedom loving laws.
These new secular regulations are the killing by the letter.
But,it pays so well and it so popular for half the population,and increases the extra and ultra legal power of the State.
“Learn game, pump & dump them”
Yeah
Or MGTOW.
Eventually the loss of surplus utility will take it’s toll.
The so called “alpha’ males with have to start pulling the load on supporting the soft harem,as those ‘friends’ wake up and quit giving utility w/o the sex reward.
Don’t cry about it playa,Pay the Bill you rack up yourselves.
No longer will the so called ‘betas’ haul the freight for someone else’s pleasure.
Chirs writes,
“Chris says:
April 16, 2013 at 5:37 am
Um, the origin of romans is pretty murky.
Let’s start with the greeks. The Greeks had a form of courtly love, It was homosexual and pedaristic. To love a woman was not seen as manly but the kind of thing that a weakling would do. This led to at one end the Thebian band where lovers chained themselves together before they went into battle (a more extreme version of “with your sheild or on it”).”
Dear Chirs, are you saying that Odysseus was unmanly for loving Penelope?
Also, where is the “homosexual and pedaristic” love found in the Iliad and Odyssey.
While there is none there, there is a lot of this in the Catholic church.
So perhaps you mean to write that Christianity is centered about “homosexual and pedaristic” love?
Please do fix your errors. Thanks!
My parents were married nearly 65 years at the time of my father’s death at age 92 in 2007. I’m the youngest of 6 children. Point being, I had old parents who honored the meaning of a contract (although my mother was a shrew who clearly believed in romantic love; I suspect that is why she was bitter; she thought she’d been robbed or cheated b/c her ideal of love didn’t fit). My father used to muse that a marriage license should be renewable (or not) like a driver’s license on a periodic basis (he wasn’t a Christian. Where does scripture call for lifelong marriage/monogamy? I’m not challenging; just don’t know). As such, I got the message: marriage is a contract with terms. Now, like most women (people?), I married for romantic love but when reality hit early on, I went through a lot of internal histrionics and disillusionment, but came to understand I can willfully honor with pleasure my marriage contract regardless of how I feel.
@Michael Elyi
“Men decide if women are worthy of marriage.
Women deciding who has sex, doesn’t mean a thing.
–mackPUA
Men, command your daughter to sew that on a sampler. Then frame it and put it on her bedroom wall.”
So true …
All daughters should be made to realise, theyre vagina isnt worth anything
A woman deciding who has sex, doesnt mean a thing
Theyre vagina & Sex is nothing compared to the resources & social power a man is able to leverage
Rejecting men, is nothing compared to a man rejecting a woman for marriage …
Men are the top dogs, when it comes to relationships
The upper-class will always be dominated by men, with a large group of women vying for them, but only a few ever get access
He who dares, wins … nobody takes risks like a man
Women will always loose, if they put their vaginas first
A vagina or access to sex, has ZERO market value
Enjoy your power women, it means jack shit to most men
GBFM —
Thank you for the outstanding book recommendations.
I have zero doubt that Western Civilization was built upon the foundations of Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem. I am not convinced that, as a Christian, I should look to Western Civilization as my proper guide to being a Christian. Science & Technology were greatly influenced by the Greek ability to think abstractly and then tie that into effective use in the physical world. That’s great — materially. But for my Christian faith, I wonder how much has been lost in our worldview due to the worldview of the Greeks.
You speak of virtue and honor. These are not, as Plato would have us believe, ideas that we somehow take into our being and become us. That is a greek and roman way of thinking that has infected our Christianity. These ideas are why the RC church sees the necessity of some kind of soul purity in order to be with God. Bibilically, I don’t see this. We are seperated from God through our spiritual death and held to be “guilty” before God. Only though Christ are we justified — a legal term of being acquitted — before God and thus worhty of the resurrection into the new creation. The Platonic heritage has all these Ideas of the Soul partipating in the Forms before being born into this world, and being corrupted or bad copies. Virtue and Honor are seen to be inherent qualities of the soul that accumulate, or adhere somehow, to the soul as we pass through life. I could be wrong, but I just don’t see this biblically.
What Plato got wrong, was that terms like “Virtue,” “Justice,” “Honor,” etc are social markers that only have their meaning due to a contextual social system. Now, if that social system is based upon the Revelation of God, it can be considered Right and we would be righteous to be marked as Virtuous within that system. But in a social system like Athens, or perhaps the present day United States of America, the social context for the social approval markings have sown confusion about what these terms even mean because the social context has been disrupted by the influence of other social systems, technology, and the pace of change. The same thing happened in ancient Israel with the surrounding cultures, and the prophets condemned this cultural whoring as the reason for the eventual split of the kingdom.
We see this in this debate about marriage. We can no longer come to a consensus on the term itself because differing ideologies have disrupted societies ideological ability to create individuals that conform ideologically with that dominant ideology – and thus to have shared contexts of meaning. The result is chaos, anxiety, and apathy.
Yeats nailed it:
…Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Society can cope and adapt to cultural changes over slower stretches of time. We are just moving to damn quick here for any kind of concensus.
All praise to Jesus Christ, because even though we are hurtling into the unknown, He gives us peace to know that it ulimately is in His hands. I am content with that.
I remember the moment my romantic love for the ex died. Not date and time stamp but what she did and said. Honestly I think romantic love could last a life time if women did a better job of keeping themselves in check
@freebird
“Actually women torpedo their marriages in the absence of Alpha Masculine Behaviour.”
No.
Women use misandrist laws for cash and profit.
“Game” is no going to fix that.”
Im not implying game fixes frivorce
EVEN if you have amazing chemistry, IF you have to apply game to relationship, it MEANS the POWER DYNAMICS in the relationship are out of balance
A man NATURALLY applies game if he has power & dominance in the relationship
So …
LETS make this clear …
WHO IS GAME REALLY FOR?
Game is for emasculated men, Game is for men not in touch with their masculinity, Game is for men who dont know how to dominate the power in their relationships
Game wont fix frivorce laws
But game will prevent, or at least delay a frivorce, if some alpha stud competes for your wife
IF you live in the city … it will happen, as women have easy access to alpha’s, even stayathome women
Make sure you stay dominant, & aloof
Women respond to social signalling, not logic …
The problem today is, women on the pill destroy their ability to bond with a strong masculine man
Which is WHY they end up settling for some Beta, after YEARS of eating poisonous pills
I’ve had plenty of women get pissed of & walk away, when I REFUSE to act like the beta retards these women on the pill want, precisely because of the effects of the pill
I’ve never had a ukrainian, or a woman not on the pill, walk away, after i put her in her place, or neg the crap out of her
Women on the pill are poisoned women …
@Elspeth
I agree that there really isn’t a conflict here. I’m not saying romantic love isn’t important, but that it has been taken out of its proper context. Ironically by promoting romantic love beyond its proper status the ability to experience romantic love is greatly diminished.
Where I think the conflict lies is in the courtship process. How do you allow people to find out if they are able to feel attraction and fall in love (burn with passion) prior to engagement without pursuing romantic love outside of marriage/engagement? This clearly requires a delicate balancing act, and it won’t be 100% perfect. However this is something our ancestors understood, and you can see this in older courtship rituals. Having the process occur when the men and women are still young seems to be a very important part of this. Ironically everyone seems to agree that young people tend to fall madly in love quite easily, but today marriage to one’s first love is seen as a pitfall to be avoided at all costs. It is true that young people left unguided often will make rash choices, but well thought out courtship rituals balance freedom of choice by the couple to be with adult wisdom and guidance. The former is needed to ensure “chemistry” and the full moral force of the vow, while the latter is needed to avoid ill advised unions.
(@James)
“To a woman love means power, to a man enslavement. ‘For the sake of love’ a woman will only do those things which are an advantage to herself.”
– Esther Vilar
Earlier you brought up women’s romance lit… It is notable that the only form of literature ever invented by women is the romantic adventure – which almost always strikes men as being pointlessly silly and dumb soap opera chick drama. It’s like Homer for women, except that all the morals are for what *not* to do, though the hamsters get mixed up on this point because of their monkey-see-monkey-do tendencies.
Adventure lit for men does not include romance as a main theme, but tends rather to be focused on heroism.
In this light, Roissy-lit then looks like romance adventure lit for men. It could be something genuinely new, like how you never used to see men on tee-vee delivering (and apparently very interested in) Hollywood celebrity gossip. It’s not exactly like breaking through some glass ceiling, but it is something I’ve noticed, that guys now can be “one of the girls” too.
@Dalrock
This post and the TAC article you linked to at the beginning, are just so on the money.
I wonder if we can ever train a hamster to understand that love is a transitive verb and not a feeling.
Pingback: Romantic love vs. marriage | Crowhill Weblog
Dalrock:
“How do you allow people to find out if they are able to feel attraction and fall in love (burn with passion) prior to engagement without pursuing romantic love outside of marriage/engagement? This clearly requires a delicate balancing act, and it won’t be 100% perfect. ”
But the primary objection this is going to draw is that there aren’t enough attractive men to go around for the women who want them for marriage and long term commitment.
I am also not so sure that girls and young women fall madly in love at a young age AND want that to culminate in marriage as the end goal. I am not sure that most girls and young women are thinking about finding marriage and being married in their early 20s.
Another phenomenon that occurs to me is the general lukewarm response I see (and used to see) from women about the men available for long-term commitment. The general attitude seems to be “yeah, these guys are nice, and I suppose I like being with them and around them, but overall, meh. They don’t excite me, I don’t want to be with them long term, and they aren’t all that attractive. They’re fun to be with for a while, but marriage? Nah. If I have to take it or leave it, I’ll leave it.”
And finally, consider the ambivalence from many women (and the cultural zeitgeist) towards the idea of commitment. “Marriage is so passe, so 1950, so “Ozzie and Harriet”, so “Brady Bunch”. Cramps my style. Need my career because what if he dies or leaves me or becomes an addict or a psycho? I can have kids when I’m 32. Don’t need a piece of paper to certify my “love” for someone.”
Marriage has not existed for forty years, when the no-fault regime began to decisively influence the culture. Contraception (Griswold) and abortion (Roe) made straight the paths for the takeover. Any discussion about matrimony and its demands must take into account this cultural elephant in the room. The vows we confess are proclaimed under the assumption that there will be external support to prop us up when we are tempted to fall. To ask the average joe to be his own self-sustaining pillar of culture is to produce the Divorce Generation, which has since produced the Anomie Generation.
Now even those assumptions of support are lost, and the de facto mass adultery is becoming de jure, with the artifice of “gay marriage” its crowning symbol. So preposterous and such an artifice that gays don’t even want it as much as they want it as an emblem of a “right” which they (proudly) will never exercise.
The only solution to this is a full-scale drive-wipe and reinstall. PUA’s have already begun the wipe process. The law of war, the jus in bello, now applies. We only mistake our surroundings for peace because we were born into them, and our predecessors were too busy erasing history books to educate us into the ability to compare ourselves with the past. The most cursory glance at prior successful civilizations exposes our innovations for the sabotage they are. Which is why we are not allowed to ask counsel from previous ages. They are “obsolete” and “irrelevant” and “regressive” and even “bigoted,” you see; now we know better, you see.
Our primary task is resurrection.
Matt
@Deti
I don’t know what percentage of women are unable to fall in love with a man in their “league” when young, but it certainly is much higher when they are older than when they are younger. If young women start from the perspective of looking for a husband (not a boyfriend/hookup/date), this will be much easier. Those few young women who follow this path today will have a huge advantage over their peers. They can select from men about four years older than them. This will allow them to pick men who are more proven while still getting them at the age they are likely to be interested in marriage.
This is a different issue than the one I quoted above (can vs will want to).
Women deciding to “leave it” isn’t the problem we face. If it were we would be much better off. What we face is women who decide to devote their most fertile years to carousel riding and/or watching, and then seeking out a beta provider. They make a great point not to “waste” any more of their youth and fertility on their husband than absolutely necessary. From my point of view some (even a large percentage of) women deciding to forgo marriage altogether would be just fine, so long as we removed the financial incentive to have illegitimate children. In a few generations the “problem” would solve itself.
@Deti
Easy Access to sex, devalues the excitement of sex, which in turn effects the necessity & excitement, ie hypergamy of marriage
Dalrock is correct, traditions & rituals play a crucial role in ensuring all of the above
Traditions of courtship & arranged marriage, will make a come back eventually
As the upper class, still practise them fanatically, even though they dont publicise it. Ie, princess diana, prince william, are all for show
Aristocrats very rarely dont apply functioning social structures … when was the last time you saw a bazillionaire self made tycoon, talk about butt plugging himself for feminism … lol
Romance is a side effect of privileged women
Privilege is an exception to the norm, it very rarely lasts for long
And Dalrock’s post on the progressive debasing of marriage shows why it’s taken so long to get a reaction—frog-in-the-pot style, it’s been little things at a time.
Bingo. It’s a slippery slope. You give somebody an inch, they take a mile.
Dalrock, you would enjoy Roger Cherlin’s “The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage” inside the Journal of Marriage and Family 66 (November 2004): 848–861. He says the same thing you do but with a lot more historical examples and contrasts.
[D: Thanks.]
This is the way Western Civilization ends, at the whims of childish women.
*gasp*
Stop reading this manospherian crap. You have such a small ego, a little penis, you are an angry insecure man, you hate women and you hate your own mother. Be a real man.
LOL
“This is a different issue than the one I quoted above (can vs will want to).”
It’s a different issue but still one which merits consideration. I’m going slightly off topic here, so please indulge me.
We’ve seen a real shift in the way women in general relate to men, to society and to love and marriage. I’m seeing a larger percentage of women simply saying “marriage can wait until I want to; it doesn’t have to be as soon as I can.” This is important because as you’ve noted in prior posts, the women think they aren’t affected but they are. They can’t do as well later on; there aren’t as many marriage minded men; the men aren’t as high caliber; it is harder and harder to conceive and bear children as she ages. The point is that many of them are in love or experiencing love and sex, but they don’t want it to end in marriage for whatever reason, usually:
1. Finish school/get established in career
2. Not finished “having fun”
3. Don’t want to commit
So this continues to be a problem, I think.
And you will never get laid nor be happily married you misogynist bastard. LOL
Well Mack, you are forgetting that men are just as into the notion of romantic love as women are. Dalrock even gave a prime example of that in his post.
True, but look around our environment. It’s a PC Orwellian environment dominated by the Feminine Imperative.
Neither of my statements on men and women is universally true, as there are women who stick in there and men who run off with other women in the throes of romantic love.
Of course it’s not “universal” nor “black and white”. It’s a generalization. Don’t over highlight exceptions/anecdotes.
@ this alcetishma pest: coming from someone like you who likely blames dah patriarchy for all your problems speaks of hypocrisy.
Lovekraft, I’m utilizing satire and trolling. It’s fun sometimes. I’m not a feminist nor a liberal.
But if I convinced you then I’m getting better at my satire/trolling.
4. My best friends cousins sisters boyfriends sister married at 34, had kids and from where I am standing they are happily married. How could you possibly say that it won’t happen for me?
Apologies for the confusion Lovekraft. I was doing satire/trolling.
@ Deti
I think that your thoughts tie nicely into our discussion a while back about how women are largely driven nowadays by their desire to sleep with Alpha males. When provision can be provided by the women herself, or the state, and when protection is provided by the state, then all that is left is the drive for Alpha seed. Why should they lock themselves down with any specific man, when there is a better man out there just waiting to be found by them. And then of course locked down by them.
alcestiseshtemoa: I like your flowers avatar. They’re very pretty! I think that proves I’m a sensitive man and willing to open my feelings up easily, which is what all women want, because women tell me so! Will you go out with me? 🙂
*JUST gamma troll commenting there, lest I get flogged to death by all the alphas here. LOL*
@alcest
lol I dont know why you’re apologising, we never see trolls with a sense of humour … you’re post was pretty funny
Real trolls never apologise, lets see some real satire …
Dance monkey dance … lol
Mark Minter, it would be very useful if you could provide citations for the article(s) you refer to on bonding. Not necessarily hyperlinks, either, a standard Title / Author(s) / Publishing Date / Publishing Venue would be fine. You have some very important information that needs to be propagated as far as practicable.
And this is compounded in the church by pastors such as Mark Driscoll shrieking at men to marry these women when they drag their sorry selves into church. I’m sure he must think he’s “helping” but all he’s doing is enabling.
Because it is love and not marriage which now confers morality upon sex, sex outside of marriage is now considered moral so long as you are in love. Thus we have the modern harlot’s defense/anthem “but we were in love!”. It is also entirely logical for gays to demand the equal right to “declare their love” via marriage under this new twisted paradigm.
Great post Dalrock.
And this is compounded in the church by pastors such as Mark Driscoll shrieking at men to marry these women when they drag their sorry selves into church. I’m sure he must think he’s “helping” but all he’s doing is enabling.
He’s trying to “help”, in an effort to “save” them. But that then turns them into small children, which then removes accountability, which then removes responsibility. And she never grows up. Which means, he’s never off the hook. So she becomes a burden, which is unbiblical. Women aren’t burdens, but rebellious, bitchy women are like poison and are a burden. So, this version of “marriage” is a perversion.
The entire modern sexual landscape is a mess between white knights, the feminine imperative, cads, harlots and much more. Yet, somehow, this corner of the internet is full of base dwelling misogynists losers who are solely virtual.
They’re right it’s solely virtual. You speak this out in the real world, you lose your job, you get death threats and you are excluded/shamed. This runs across the board from manospherian stuff to orthospherian things to HBD to “evil, boogeyman religious freaks who plant bombs”.
From my point of view some (even a large percentage of) women deciding to forgo marriage altogether would be just fine, so long as we removed the financial incentive to have illegitimate children. In a few generations the “problem” would solve itself. (voluntary/Involuntary Childless Spinsterhood huh Dalrock? sounds like the plan to me)
With the laws being what they are this is what we have today. A male pill will acheive the results wit the law staying the same. A political leader with savvy can introduce a male pill and continue his “support” of the female imperative and break the back of feminism all the while looking like a “nice” guy. I bet there are a few women out there that will welcome it and stand aside as it happened. Lose cultural power with out having to submit, be a victim and have responsibility and pressure removed and all the while still leaving the female imperative lie fully insulated from reality.
The real work is changing the culture and the foundation is understanding where cultural traditions come from and why they are there along with the rule of traditions in maintaining civilization.
Dalrock almost said voluntary childless spinsterhood.
from Sunshine
And this is compounded in the church by pastors such as Mark Driscoll shrieking at men to marry these women when they drag their sorry selves into church. I’m sure he must think he’s “helping” but all he’s doing is enabling.
This is the kind of thing I was posting about above. Driscoll is a POS that is following the female imperative and tradition without understanding out of ignorance or far worse out of female worship for his own benefit. It is the ignorance of tradition and it’s role in culture that allows a man like him and the churchians to get away with what they are doing. Let’s keep shining that light on the elephant in the room.
I’d love to meet Mark Driscoll one day, I do need someone for which to practice my IDF eye gouging techniques after all.
I’m starting to get fed up with being told, despite practicing a virtuous life, despite rejecting the advances of women who have wanted to ride the Frank Express, that I have no right to desire a woman who has also made the same sacrifices and stayed a virgin. Nope, I only get endless shaming to shut up, marry up a slut or a single mom with 3 failed marriages and 5 kids. That’s my reward for keeping Mister Slappywankles benched all these years?
I do not want to turn into a full fledged pump and dumping Alpha, but I swear to cheese and wine, women today, especially professing “Christians” are pushing me to the brink here.
I do not want to turn into a full fledged pump and dumping Alpha, but I swear to cheese and wine, women today, especially professing “Christians” are pushing me to the brink here.
Eh, don’t bother with the skanky ones if you don’t have to. The game will jade you and none of the women are worth the headaches.
The sorts of women you want (low/no notch count, interested in traditional relationship) are out there. Granted, they’re sorta scarce, but there’s definitely a supply. There’s a tradeoff in that you’ll have to date down (most of these girls are in the 19-22 age group, before they get married). They’re the plain jane types. Nice and cute but not knockouts. You probably pass these women every day and don’t notice them. These will be from very conservative families who like to talk about politics, which is sort of annoying. The immigrant community has a sizeable supply too. I’ve found a number of these, perhaps because I’m not really looking for them.
Regards, Boxer
@ Frank
Your situation really reminds me of anonymous’. Do you know who he is? He’s around my place sometimes. He married at 38 – and a virgin – and faced a lot of the same issues you’re dealing with. I’m sure he has some insight to share with you.
8oxer:
See, I was just thinking about this the other day. By the time girls are legally old enough to marry, a large percentage of them are already not virgins. By the time they come on the marriage market, they're already ruined. It's insanity.
Percent of teens who claim to have had sex, by age:
Age Boys Girls
14 7.9% 5.7%
15 14.6% 13.0%
16 25.3% 26.8%
17 39.4% 43.1%
18 54.3% 58.0%
19 65.2% 70.1%
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolescent_sexuality_in_the_United_States#Virginity_loss
SSM: No, if I see him though I may go pick his brain for some insights and advice. 🙂
8oxer: That’s exactly what I’ve been thinking about the past few days, but the social shaming has gotten to me, so I’m trying to exorcise myself of the guilt of befriending younger women. One thing’s for sure, I’d have to forgo online dating altogether. There’s something about that particular demographic of twentysomething women that is extremely vicious and cruel to older men for some reason. In real life though where I don’t have my age tattooed to my forehead, the experience of meeting younger women through serendipity (Apple stores, libraries) has been very pleasant in comparison.
SSM: There was another study that queried the Christian/Bible Belt community exclusively, I think they found one half of one percent took their faith very seriously and practiced chaste lifestyles as a result of it. At least I think it was 0.5 percent, but for the life of me, I’ve been unable to to find the source. It was a big one too, a sample of thousands if I remember right.
This clearly requires a delicate balancing act, and it won’t be 100% perfect. However this is something our ancestors understood, and you can see this in older courtship rituals. Having the process occur when the men and women are still young seems to be a very important part of this. Ironically everyone seems to agree that young people tend to fall madly in love quite easily, but today marriage to one’s first love is seen as a pitfall to be avoided at all costs. It is true that young people left unguided often will make rash choices, but well thought out courtship rituals balance freedom of choice by the couple to be with adult wisdom and guidance. The former is needed to ensure “chemistry” and the full moral force of the vow, while the latter is needed to avoid ill advised unions.
Yes, Dalrock. I agree with all of this, especially about the balancing act. The problem of course, is that this generation of parents, suitors, and single women all balk at it.
I know a young, Christian man who ended his courtship with a young woman because her father set reasonable boundaries for his access to her. He is now married to a woman he had more access to and is miserable more often than not.
It is a fairly regular occurrence that Christian people are not on board with what you describe here. Our American tendency towards individualism and freedom to choose has infected a large majority of those in our churches. When we reach adulthood, we don’t want to be told by anyone what to do. And most parents frankly don’t want the burden of sheltering and guarding their young adult children.
They can finally jet off on all those vacations they never got to take, you know.
On the whole virginity stuff during marriage, it’s best to aim for assortive mating. If you’re a cad, marry a harlot. If you’re a virgin/celibate man, marry a virgin/celibate woman. If you’re chaste, marry someone who is chaste as well. Do assortive marriages.
If marriages go outside this dynamic, it’s a huge mismatch. People won’t experience connection, compatibility and joy together.
A cad looking for a virgin/celibate woman, or harlot looking for a virgin/celibate man, would be a marriage made in hell. It wouldn’t bind and it would end in catastrophe.
I think it is even worse than Dalrock suggests. Love is irrelevant: what matters is consent. The fact that you are married does not mean you have consent to have sex with your wife, and the fact that you are not married is no reason to refrain from having sex with anyone, male or female, married or single, young or old (well obviously not too young), twosomes, threesomes or moresomes and suffering or inflicting any degree of personal violence short of causing death. This is the result of a shift to atomised rights-based rather than socially-sanctioned contractually-based thinking. Determining whether that consent has been given and not revoked is the Devil’s own work and he is welcome to it.
@ alcestiseshtemoa
Agreed to an extent. There is plenty of info out there in the manophere indicating that a chaste man marrying an unchaste woman almost always ends in disaster. The same is not true necessarily for a non-chaste man marrying a chaste woman. That seems to be much more likely to succeed. While I agree that assortive mating is preferable, any discrepancy seems to be founded much more on the woman’s mating behavior than the man’s.
I think it is even worse than Dalrock suggests. Love is irrelevant: what matters is consent. The fact that you are married does not mean you have consent to have sex with your wife, and the fact that you are not married is no reason to refrain from having sex with anyone,
But isn’t the logical endpoint of consent culture forcible rape? For example:
“Our motto is universal equality, liberty, fraternity.”
“Humanity is about autonomy/individualism.”
(On face value these two clauses above can be contradictory but few seem to notice).
Since everybody is equal, and humans are autonomous individuals, then nobody can be unequal and still be human. Or have another person’s will “overriding” them and still be human. But inequality and communities are a natural, immutable part of life, and so, to enforce the unenforceable, drastic, perhaps invisible, measures must be taken.
My arguments are a bit weak, but I’m guessing that somehow, somewhere, the consent culture leads to rape at some point.
Like if I am equal, and my will is equal to another’s, then what is stopping me from taking what I want? Morality? Principles? No. Feelings? Maybe, but they’re not enough.
alcestiseshtemoa in Socratic mode:
Like if I am equal, and my will is equal to another’s, then what is stopping me from taking what I want? Morality? Principles? No. Feelings? Maybe, but they’re not enough.
Force. Ultimately, what underpins every law, every custom, every limit on human behavior sooner or later is raw, naked, blood-on-the-ground force. Philosophers tend to not like this…
@Alcestisheshtemoa
I believe I understand your point and indeed agree which is why I suggested that it was the Devil’s work, meaning that it is impossible to decide where consent has been withdrawn or never given. In the words of Tina Turner ‘What’s love got to do with it?’
Dalrock. This is one of your finest. IMHO, the three most important concepts you have introduced in your blog are:
1) Serial monogamy as female promiscuity.
2) The change of family from marriage to child support.
3) Love as a new moral rule.
You will notice that the last two are recent. You’re on a roll, Dalrock.
Regarding the third one, I remember SW claiming that a slut is someone that makes sex without love. As you say, love is the moral absolute of our days.
I have learned to be wary of the L-word. When I start a relationship, women are like “I love you! I love you! I love you!”. I am like “How could you love me? We have been only dating for two months!!” (they get offended when hearing that). But I have learned that the thing they really want to say is: “I want you to commit to me”.
Then, when they fail to extract commitment from me (it’s not that I don’t want to commit but to the right woman), they are like “I don’t love you anymore”, which, in my experience, means: “I have failed to get what I wanted from you. You are an useless tool so get lost so I can see if I trick another man”.
Although this has happened to me many times, I always get surprised by how sudden is the change. The interval between “I love you more than my life” and “I don’t love you anymore and I want you to disappear ASAP”, it is usually less than two weeks (during these weeks, it’s likely that they have found another chump: it happened to me with the woman I was going to marry).
I get that the L-word is the ultimate manipulation tool in the hands of women. In my opinion, the woman who really loves you takes some time to drop the L-word. If you know a woman and things go fast and she starts proclaiming her love to you very quickly, be wary of it: it’s probably that the woman wants to use you for reach her female imperative. Real love is like a plant: it takes some time to grow.
(Disclaimer: I am an European man living in Latin America so YMMV.)
Pingback: Is Same-Sex Marriage The Death Knell for The Church? | UK Fred
Pingback: Do Christian apologists need to know how to defend chastity and marriage? | Wintery Knight
“A cad looking for a virgin/celibate woman, or harlot looking for a virgin/celibate man, would be a marriage made in hell. It wouldn’t bind and it would end in catastrophe.”
The former could work, the latter would not. This is because equality does not apply to hookups. Womens ability to pair bond is far more damaged by our current culture.
Hypergamy and a ruined ability to pair bond almost makes me feel sorry for women.
Plus, mackpua made the interesting suggestion that womens inability to love their children is another symptom of ruined pair bonding.
Empathy for women almost achieved, but not quite…
“It wouldn’t bind and it would end in catastrophe.”
Not for the lawyers, court staff and sundry divorce industy parasites.
Hey Dalrock!
When are you and heartiste going to start a publishing company for your books of Great Wisdom for Men?
I offer to edit 4 free 2 keep da grammar properoz and reaadablez zlzlzlzoozzozozlzozoz
Let’s not see the past through rose-tinted spectacles. The ideal of chastity before marriage was not always honored. In Britain and the USA, if a pregnancy resulted, then a shotgun wedding would follow soon afterwards. I have read that in some Christian countries, there was a different custom: a couple could live in a “trial marriage” lasting a year, after which they had to get married for real, or bail out.
In other words, although it fell short of the Christian ideal, a certain amount of fornication was tolerated as a concession to human nature. Even the Amish tolerate adolescents going out into the wider world for Rumspringa.
What is both new and damaging is the idea that this period of experimentation can last 10, 15 or 20 years. Some women ride the “cock carousel” for this long, but others waste their prime years in a small number of hypergamous relationships that each last several years but do not end in marriage.
“A cad looking for a virgin/celibate woman, or harlot looking for a virgin/celibate man, would be a marriage made in hell. It wouldn’t bind and it would end in catastrophe.”
Lasting marriages that I know personally are MOSTLY between couples that met when teenagers and then married young. So I’m assuming both were of limited if not only partners before marriage.
But I also know of several marriages that both had high partners before marriage. Here by high I mean probably 100 partners. The either stayed married until parted by one’s death or are still married.
Interestingly, I know of virgin/cad marriage. It ended in divorce. Also 1 partner/1 partner (this would be myself) ended in divorce.
I know several women who have waited and men at church just weren’t interested — even though they were attractive and would have been a good choice.
Point being, there is no one formula and that works.
Jillian Keenan of Slate Magazine writes, in an article entitled “Legalize Polygamy!”:
The case for polygamy is, in fact, a feminist one and shows women the respect we deserve. Here’s the thing: As women, we really can make our own choices. We just might choose things people don’t like.
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html
The church needs to start going against the culture and talking about marriage as a sacred oath to one person, not entered into lightly. We need to deliberately strup away the bridezilla elements of what we do and talk more about the covenantl nature.
Moving marriages, like baptism and confirmation, into the ordianry Sunday Service wiould be a great place to start.
@Opus
Good point.
A woman can have sex with whoever she wants, a man only with whoever allows him.
Consent on the part of the man for up 18+ yrs of child support is presumed the second he gets his dick wet.
BTW – I saw a news note that they were cracking down on the “exploitation of women” via surrogacy (a topic which comes up around here occasionally), so this route to parenthood is no longer available for single men.
“The fact that you are married does not mean you have consent to have sex with your wife, ”
Typical statement by a newbie to the manosphere, who doesnt even understand the concept of marriage …
The whole point of marriage is sex with the wife, as & when the man needs & wants it, a womans vows is to be sexually available at all times
What else is she bringing to the table? Is she putting bread on the table, no. Is she putting the kids through university, no. Is she paying the mortgage, no.
Sex is the only thing women really bring to a marriage, womens dysfunctional irrational behaviour gets in the way of most men finding companionship with a woman
Most men consider it an act of extreme betrayal, if you start acting batshit & bitchy at certain times of the month
Dont marry a man, if you cant control your biology … act bitchy & irrational & he wont trust you for years afterwards, unless you go out of your way to make it up to him
Believe it or not, men want the benefits of a wife, not the benefits of a mother to his kids
Dont want to satisfy the sexual needs of a man, go join a convent
Fulfill your vows, or GTFO & stop wasting the time of a good man who wants the benfits of a hot wife
James, there was an April Fools spoof at the American Spectator of Sillary giving a speech promoting polygamy – and everything else one might think of.
H.L. Mencken almost a hundred years ago noted that a popular/well-known philosopher of the day had pointed out that the arguments against polygamy never come from women.
Any of you well-read types know who this might have been?
Competition makes everyone better so it would put pressure on wives to preform better
Dalrock hits another one out of the field.
For a sin to be elevated to a virtue, the sin must be made moral and the corresponding virtue must be ridiculed, made irrelevant or become a vehicle for the sin.
So marriage no longer becomes the higher good but becomes the ground where romantic love is officially expressed.
So effectively marriage becomes a temporary expression of romantic love and true love (Agape) is subordinated to romantic love (Eros).
“Easy Access to sex, devalues the excitement of sex, which in turn effects the necessity & excitement, ie hypergamy of marriage.”
+1
@Martian
“cracking down on the “exploitation of women” via surrogacy ”
There is no crackdown on surrogacy, surrogacy has always varied from country to country, India is just complying with international law
Men will always be able to get surrogacies, as theres plenty of countries who allow commercial surrogacies
@Johnycomelately
“For a sin to be elevated to a virtue, the sin must be made moral and the corresponding virtue must be ridiculed, made irrelevant or become a vehicle for the sin.”
Well said, which is why virginity is looked down on
The only way for a woman to show love or empathy for a man, is virginal
TRUE love is an act of biochemistry
The optimal state of bonding for a woman with a man is as a virgin
None-virginal women are 2nd hand goods … none virginal women are biologically basically useless for marriage or children
As basically carousel riders, who’ve banged so many guys, they have zero ability to bond with anyone … even their own children
There is a world of difference, between the bond of a child & a virgin …. & the bond of a child & a slut …
In fact I consider it an act of child abuse, of a child not born to a virginal woman
As the security & bond of a child is millions of times more powerful biologically with a virgin, then a slut
If a woman wants to be a mother & truly experience motherhood, she should keep her legs shut & stay a virgin
Women have no idea how much more there is to discover of their biology, if they stay a virgin
@Anonymous Reader
The key article to which I refer is from Scientific American
Love Hurts: Brain Chemistry Explains the Pangs of Separation
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=young-alexander-excerpt-chemistry-between-us
And this one from Nature magazine
Being Human: Love: Neuroscience reveals all
Nature magazine is behind a pay wall. I found an academic site that allowed access through my Texas public library
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=ad352266-0b38-4732-8088-1741e622b048%40sessionmgr114&vid=2&hid=128
There is big, badly formatted photo that occludes some of the text and I found it easier just do a ctrl-A and copy it all into a text file to read it.
The key writer to date on the subject is Dr Larry Young, a neuroscientist from Emory University. He has a site and several readable books published, meaning written for general consumption, the most famous being The Chemistry Between Us.
Here is another by Dr Larry Young published in Nature, again through an academic link site.
The neurobiology of pair bonding
http://dbs.umt.edu/research_labs/breunerlab/documents/YoungNatureNeuro2004.pdf
It is scientific in wording and it is the basis of the chemistry of pair bonding, those references to D1 and D2 AVG, Oxytocin, that I made reference in my comment.
I will continue to research the subject. There was significant advancement that occurred this week that will yield significant fruits in the coming years. In the past neuroscience relied on slicing brains into two dimensional frames moving from front to back or side to side, with thing calibrated slices to detect brain chemistry.
Stanford has created a process called Clarify to enable 3 dimensional study of more or less intact brains. Lipids are fatty molecules found throughout the brain and body. In the brain, especially, they help form cell membranes and give the brain much of its structure. Lipids pose a double challenge for biological study, however, because they make the brain largely impermeable both to chemicals and to light.
They have been able to use a feat of chemical engineering and replace the lipids with a substance that when treated with light it turns the lipid into a clear substance like a jello. It keeps the brain structurally intact. So now they use chemical traces and follow deep connections without slicing. This is a breakthrough coupled with some others, should accelerate neuroscience a great deal.
Another article even spoke of using chemicals to either terminate bonding or actually enable it. The article said “a woman (of course, a woman) in love with a man in a destructive or abusive relationship could in the future have the bonding ‘turned off’. I could think of more than a few men that wished that option.
Or possibly they could be given couples at marriage counseling to re-ignite former flames.
Also, they mentioned the idea of finding your ‘perfect match’ by some criteria, maybe some eharmony algorithm, of some genetic analysis or some futuristic stuff, and then the both of you take some pills. And then Badabing badaboom, or if you prefer, “presto”, you both are then bonded.
The last of the article mentioned the possibility of some dastardly fellow dropping pills into a drink and causing the woman to fall in love with him. God, the horror for those women, betas tricking them to actually fall in love with them. The last line was
“But would you really care? After all, you are in love. And love is Madness.”
Dear Sunshine Mary, et. al.:
Thanks for the reply. Please see below.
See, I was just thinking about this the other day. By the time girls are legally old enough to marry, a large percentage of them are already not virgins. By the time they come on the marriage market, they’re already ruined. It’s insanity.
The ones I’ve met were likely to stay virgins until marriage, but the minute they intend to tie the knot, there are plenty of dudes who *will* put a ring on it. They don’t stay single long, and the power a virgin girl wields in the marriage market will immediately put the lie to all the feminist claptrap about how men want a woman who is sexually experienced.
Back to the point of the original brother, who complained about how there are no virgin/low count “good girls” out there for him… This is the male version of the apex fallacy, constructed by the male rationalisation hamster. It’s an easy mistake to make, because the women we notice are the flashy ones who peacock around wearing jewelry and makeup and low-cut blouses. While we’re all gaping at them on Saturday night, the quiet ones who have no desire to play the hoe are back at their kitchen tables doing homework and such. You meet these girls all the time, you’re just not noticing.
I still don’t think getting married is a good risk. More than one decent girl has played turncoat and joined the hoe team, taking most of her husband’s hard earned wealth in the process; and, there’s no way to tell which ones are likely to be in it for the long haul. If a brother absolutely wants to get married, though, he just has to start looking in the right places, and finding things he likes about the girls who aren’t on the dance floor.They’re still around.
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/04/17 | Free Northerner
@8oxer
Back to the point of the original brother, who complained about how there are no virgin/low count “good girls” out there for him… This is the male version of the apex fallacy, constructed by the male rationalisation hamster.
I do not think it’s an apex fallacy. Simply, there are not many of them (either virgins or low count) and most are in a relationship now matter how plain they are.
And I have forgotten to write another important thing. When you marry such woman and have a son he is (very probably) going to be a natural beta. Not good if you want grandchildren.
This dilemma has no easy solution.
Pingback: Love Is An Action Verb | The Society of Phineas
Good article. Very good article. Romance is not at all the same thing as love, when we define love Biblically.
Wtf how is a boy a natural beta if he’s born to a virgin … ? lol
If anything he’s more likely to be alot more masculine, precisely because of the stronger bonding biochemistry of the mother
Bitchy women dont raise strong men
I dunno… my Dad was/is a natural beta and my parents were each other’s ‘first’, but my mom managed to give birth to 3 natural alpha boys, the last of whom (me) didn’t even know he was an alpha because he almost had it entirely trained out of him by the feminist establishment.
@ Mark Minter. Great sources re: bonding. I only skimmed a bit so far but one thing that jumped out at me in the Nature artcile (http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=ad352266-0b38-4732-8088-1741e622b048%40sessionmgr114&vid=2&hid=128) was:
“In male prairie voles, for example, vasopressin — a hormone related to
oxytocin — stimulates pair bonding, aggression towards potential rivals, and paternal instincts,
such as grooming offspring in the nest. Variation in a regulatory region of the vasopressin
receptor gene, avpr1a, predicts the likelihood that a male vole will bond with a female.
Similarly, in humans, different forms of the AVPR1A gene are associated with variation
in pair bonding and relationship quality.
A recent study shows that men with a particular AVPR1A variant are twice as likely as
men without it to remain unmarried, or when married, twice as likely to report a recent crisis
in their marriage.”
This could this be the underlying biological source of the natural alpha/natural beta characteristics. Of course, cultural imprinting is laid on top of that, so there is a sliding scale of the behaviour we actually see.
Alpha masculinity of a son is determined by a fathers T count, behaviour doesnt determine biology as much as psychologists like to think
As long as the mother isnt a raging bitch, regardless of how beta the father, he will always have dominant standing in the relationship, because of the natural power dynamics of a marriage
Allowing most men to know how to be alpha & masculine to some degree
It’s really knowing how macho or masculine men have to be
The more masculine & macho you are, the more stuff gets done
Being extremely masculine or macho, is alot like having a bullet proof shield around you, nothing effects you, bullshit emotions bounce off you & you plow through work like a raging bull
A high T count rocks …
I think when men realise the amount of masculinity & macho they can tap into, thats when they become alpha
Self actualisation, ie realising your potential, is a powerful way to tap into your own biology & true strength
Hi Dalrock
Thanks for this wonderful blog, it’s one of my favorite blogs !
I wanted to ask you a question but did not know where to send it so I’m posting it here.
What do you think of Christopher Ryan’s “Sex at Dawn”, and of the whole “Bonobo Connection” thing ?
http://www.sexatdawn.com/
I would love to read a post on this subject.
[D: Welcome Nina. I’m not familiar enough with it to comment on it.]
@tbc: Are you sure your Dad was a natural beta? Maybe he was actually higher on the alpha scale but just so culturally conditioned with the consent of his parents (as you were) that he seemed to be beta? Did he seem happy in his marriage all the time? Maybe he didn’t have to learn to let the alpha behaviours out, because he had a wife that controlled her hypergamy. If he had had to take the red pill because of divorce etc, his presentation may have been pushed to the alpha side of the scale.
As several PUA have said, the biggest part of game is to stop doing the wrong thing (supplicating behaviour, complimenting on appearance, etc.). The biggest thing I am doing for my boys is to squash the beta bullshit that our society is trying to indoctrinate them in. I make fun of songs that come on the radio that have some guy supplicating/pedestalizing women. I make sure they see me talking to random women and teasing clerks etc. to show that they don’t need to be afraid of approaching women. I also push them to show confidence and assertiveness and have them in martial arts to instill confidence. It is working. They aren’t even in high school and already have the social success (too young for sexual) with girls that I didn’t manage until my late 20s. Even grown women comment on them, saying they will be heartbreakers. The point is, I am not making them alpha, I am just suppressing the beta, so that the overall presentation is skewed to alpha.
Dalrock,
One solution to this ever worsening problem would be arranged marriages.
Growing up, my best friend was Muslim. There was never any doubt that her parents would arrange her marriage. She had no problem with this.
Her parents are lovely, well-educated people. Her mother is a physician. Her father is a nuclear physicist. They are devout in their faith. They only considered devout, well-educated men for her. Once they found a prospect they introduced him to her and let her decided if she wanted to allow him to court her.
She nixed the first candidate b/c she wasn’t physically attracted to him. She liked the second suitor and they began to court. All of their dates were chaperoned and there was no physical contact. They married within a year of meeting.
They are still together 18 years later. He is a wonderful man. He’s handsome, kind, committed to his faith, and he’s a surgeon so he’s a great provider. My girlfriend is very happy and very much in love, just as her parents are after nearly 50 years of marriage.
Arranged marriages get an undeserved bad rap in the U.S. As a parent, I would have my daughters’ best interests in mind if I were choosing their spouses. I wouldn’t even consider men who didn’t meet the criteria that God lays out for husbands in the Bible. It would probably work out at least as well as letting them dive into a scarey pool of would-be suitors on their own.
Plus, it would encourage single men to set high standards for themselves (since they would have to be selected by their future bride’s parents). But, in the end it would be worth it because they would be rewarded with virgins from good families, which is exactly what many men who post here seem to want.
@Draggin – that is a good question. I think my father is much more beta, but didn’t grow up in a era or context where supplicating women was ever done. He was raised by an unconstrained alpha (i.e. the kind of guy who beats his wife) who was his step-father. His natural father was a bit of a player. And then my dad married a woman (my mom) who treated him as her hero and made him feel like he could accomplish anything. It was a very good marriage; till death do us part.
The interesting point from this extraneous biography, is that A LOT more men came across as alpha prior to the feminist revolution. Normal male behavior was more alpha then than it is now, not because the men were naturally that way, but because they were socially expected and rewarded for being more ‘masculine’.
By the way Dalrock, I need you to remove a comment that was made on your blog inadvertently…
Christopher Ryan has a blog at Psychics Today. IME his work is chick science and more feminist fairytales. Some people take it seriously.
Also at PT just recently is a blogpost on age at first intercourse, which used to be more or less synonymous with age of marriage (1.0). 15-19 is now considered normal — not average, but normal, reflecting the herdthink — and 20+ is “late”.
Which came first, devirgiNATION or all the bastards and massive cuckolding? lolzzzz
@tbc, do you really think that this, the current state of men, is natural? It would seem to me to be profoundly unnatural maintained only by a constant barrage of you-go-grrl plots in works of fiction, irrational economic conditions socially engineered with the power of a hundred years of built-up capital, and twelve years of compliance training.
No. This isn’t natural. And to pull out one of my favorite quotes: “In an artificial world, only extremists live naturally.” ~ Paul Graham
Mack, I’ve never given the subject much thought, but wasn’t India the preferred choice for surrogacy because a) English is spoken there, and b) their best medical technology is roughly comparable to ours? Not to mention the standard outsourcing arguments such as cost and relative ease of availabilty.
What would be the first fallback country? Or is the new law in India unenforceable, or easily gotten around w/bribes, etc?
@seriously – perhaps I wasn’t clear. I believe that there has been grade inflation (for lack of a better term) for women and deflation for men, so that what is now often considered ‘alpha’ behavior was once simply common masculine behavior. Now normal male behavior is stigmatized to the point that a 1960’s ‘beta’ (like my dad) would be considered ‘alpha’ by today’s standards, just because he doesn’t supplicate and pedastalise women.
On the other side of the equation, women have a much more inflated sense of themselves so that 3’s think they’re 5’s and 5’s think they’re 8’s.
It is all an artificial market. ‘Normal’ men are being priced out of the market for women, but that isn’t because women are actually more valuable, but their value is artificially inflated while the ‘purchasing power’ (so to speak) of men is artificially suppressed. It is not sustainable and we’re already beginning to see signs of the bust coming at the low end (socio-economic and sexual) of the market.
I’m not sure I’m making sense, but there you have it.
mackPUA says: April 17, 2013 at 8:41 am
This.
Surely love must have some place within modern marriage. I’m skeptical of this assertion that love grows out a legal/political/religious arrangement. Our economic prosperity enables us to have other criteria to develop meaningful heterosexual relationship other than the purely biblical or economic concerns. These are naturally ascendant to Dalrock, and his perspective is valid in relation to Christian values, but I’m sure this view is workable/desirable in a modern context
My comment about a natural beta caused some undeserved controversy like Wtf how is a boy a natural beta if he’s born to a virgin … ? lol.
So here is explanation:
Back to the point of the original brother, who complained about how there are no virgin/low count “good girls” out there for him… This is the male version of the apex fallacy, constructed by the male rationalisation hamster. It’s an easy mistake to make, because the women we notice are the flashy ones who peacock around wearing jewelry and makeup and low-cut blouses. While we’re all gaping at them on Saturday night, the quiet ones who have no desire to play the hoe are back at their kitchen tables doing homework and such. You meet these girls all the time, you’re just not noticing.
Women who are quiet, have no desire to play around and such are self-aware, caring, responsible and more introvert then their “flashy” counterparts. Her children are likely to inherit some of these traits. Although the former are not particularly (un)attractive, introversion is the real killer. For women it does not matter much but for men it significantly reduces their ability to attract women and to have offspring.
I still remember a study, 15 years ago, claiming introverted men have 20% less children compared to extraverted (white men in Europe). That is a significant difference causing visible changes in just few generations. After so many years I seriously doubt I will find the study but here is at least something from Evo And Proud : extraversion-tool-for-mating-success.html. Effectively, Western society is polygynous and promiscous.
@tbc: Ah, I see what you meant there. You were saying, “Our ancestors weren’t giants, the environment and socialization have conspired to make us this way, not some intrinsic failing in us.” Which is what I basically just reiterated in my comment, ha. I misunderstood.
Men are biologically engineered not to commit to promiscuous women.
The whole evo psych field is dominated by the ‘eggs expensive, sperm cheap’ theme and almost exclusively panders to female desires (alpha, beta, dominance etc) while very little is concerned with male desires apart from genetic fitness (ie hotness).
Free Northerner has an interesting post on the Madonna/whore complex that eloquently posits that men are hard wired not to commit to sluts. It’s the male equivalent of the ‘alpha seed, beta bucks’ paradigm.
https://freenortherner.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/the-two-male-sexual-appetites/
I like the post as it adequately explains men’s natural aversions to commit to high n women while still desiring sex with promiscuous women.
The fact that nature invests so heavily in neoteny, particularly in children and females (ie hymens), shows that men are hard wired to commit to protect the ‘innocent’.
So men are endowed with two distinct mutually exclusive proclivities, protect and sex, which adequately explains todays men’s aversions to modern women.
Instead of seeing marriage as the moral context to pursue romantic love and sex, romantic love is now seen as the moral place to experience sex and marriage. This inversion is subtle enough that no one seems to have noticed, but if you look for it you will see it everywhere.
This is a great point — great post, in general, but this is a great way of stating the core issue.
Stephanie Koontz has admitted as much, although she describes it as the rise of “hedonic marriage”. What she means isn’t a marriage based on hedonism or sex, but a marriage based on providing specific “goods” to the individual participants, the chief one being the pleasure associated with romantic love. She has written glowingly about “how love conquered marriage” and so on, and (rightly in my view) sees the change in marriage away from the earlier models — which tended to focus more on roles, commitments and the overall benefit of family and children — towards one where personal satisfaction is the core component, and of course the core element there is romantic love and hot sex.
The tricky business is that, of course, no-one in Christianity would say that it’s bad to have romantic love and hot sex. So when the question gets bandied about and discussed, the frame is often set badly. The way you have stated the question reframes it nearly perfectly in that romantic love is now the overarching factor that “makes moral” (or for people who don’t believe in things like morality, makes “okay” or “ethical”) sexual activity — whether one is married or not (marriage being seen here as something that can, but does not need to, follow from the overarching good of romantic love).
It’s definitely true that this is everywhere in relationship culture, in the way the culture views relationships and so on. And it explains why things are so dissolute quite well.
Imnobody wrote
“I have learned to be wary of the L-word. When I start a relationship, women are like “I love you! I love you! I love you!”. I am like “How could you love me? We have been only dating for two months!!” (they get offended when hearing that). But I have learned that the thing they really want to say is: “I want you to commit to me”.
Then, when they fail to extract commitment from me (it’s not that I don’t want to commit but to the right woman), they are like “I don’t love you anymore”, which, in my experience, means: “I have failed to get what I wanted from you. You are an useless tool so get lost so I can see if I trick another man”.
Although this has happened to me many times, I always get surprised by how sudden is the change. The interval between “I love you more than my life” and “I don’t love you anymore and I want you to disappear ASAP”, it is usually less than two weeks (during these weeks, it’s likely that they have found another chump: it happened to me with the woman I was going to marry).
I get that the L-word is the ultimate manipulation tool in the hands of women. In my opinion, the woman who really loves you takes some time to drop the L-word. If you know a woman and things go fast and she starts proclaiming her love to you very quickly, be wary of it: it’s probably that the woman wants to use you for reach her female imperative. Real love is like a plant: it takes some time to grow.
Truer words were never spoken – Pure wisdom. This identical situation happened to me to the woman I was going to marry.
Thinking back – I am quite glad it did.
Oh … why not?
There is always this question of how homosexual marriage can hurt heterosexual marriage. I have an answer.
Given that the homosexual male community seems 5 times as large as its actual numbers through faux drama and being more outrageous than outraged, and
given that BOTH males in such a marriage will be wearing their wonderful wedding rings, I submit that
the second or third time some heterosexual man is asked about HIS HUBBY that his ring is coming off and no amount of whining or threats by his wife will get him to wear it again.
It’s going to undermine the perception of marriage of the very men which the institution counts on to uphold it.
@ The Rigorist
Or you know… the fact that homosexual marriage actually produces worse outcomes with children than heterosexual marriage…
Arianna Pattek, a racist, man-hating feminist bitch
http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums2/tabid/369/forumid/232/threadid/6149/scope/posts/Default.aspx
In the above link, you will find evidence of her committing the CRIME of discrimination based on a man’s race.
I have included her personal email, the email of her academic advisor, link to her Facebook account, link to her two blogs, and her pictures as well.
I suggest you men write to her through her email, Facebook, and blogs, and tell her that you are reporting her for the CRIME of discrimination against men.
American women are really evil bitches.
Dear Sunshine Mary,
Please see inside text:
that makes total sense given the way I was treated at HUS last week – because I chose to honor my commitment to marriage during a time when the romantic love part was broken (it’s fixed now), I was heavily shamed
I didn’t say anything at the time, but I was mightily entertained by that laughable bout of what can only be described as ressentiment. It was a little like a train wreck. My hat is off to you, by the way, for masterfully trolling them into showing their collective hand. It almost looked too easy, but I think it probably took a lot of self-control on your part.
Susan and her pathetic crew of sheeple are some really sick chicks (and manginas too – it’s amazing to see the men who dance around there for female attention), Of course they’d shame you. You’ve achieved a moderately healthy relationship and seem to be a fully individuated adult who takes responsibility for herself. That’s parsecs away from anything that lot of whiners and skanks could manage.
I’ve come to feel doubly sorry for the poor schlub who was dumb enough to marry that miserable old cunt. I imagine he encourages her to stay in the computer room, which would explain both her unhinged posting style and meth-freak class uptime. No doubt those who would otherwise have to deal with her antics in real-life are relieved to have her blogging non-stop, for days at a time, and at all hours of the day and night.
Regards, Boxer
something of interest perhaps:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324600704578405280211043510.html
From the article:
Note the unassailable feminist imperative
http://feministconservative.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/my-first-week-of-work/
feministconservative
secular humynist, pro-Israel, feminist, and fiscally conservative Arianna Pattek
My first week of work
Posted on June 8, 2012 by feministconservative
Like I said in my last post, I’m working in my school’s admissions office for the time being. This is a great opportunity for me, and I’m so glad to have the ability to decide who will come in and who won’t. We are here to make future leaders of America and the world, and as such we have the responsibility do keep those who would make the world a worse place far away, while admitting those who have potential to use their abilities to improve the world.
For instance I can’t tell you how many applications I saw that were just dripping with white male privelege. Any of those that I saw basically went straight to the garbage can regardless of how good their qualifactions were. If I saw an application from a white male that basically was just good test scores, and activities like chess club or math club or what not then it shows me this person is not interested in a diverse environment. Obviously he made no effort in integrating with minorities or to sympathize with them and is counting on male privelege to get in. So that kind of application should get ignored. In their place I admitted a female student. This goes double especially for math/science majors.
Another time this I had an application for what sounded like an arab male who wanted to study computer science. On paper he looked good enough, decent above average scores, and such. But I checked facebook and sure enough on his wall I came came upon a particularly hateful post about Israel supposedly not having a right to exist. I promptly trashed the application and sent out a rejection letter.
The lesson here is that people are multi-dimensional. We can’t boil people down to numbers or statistics, or reject people based on the color of their skin. I’m happy to say that I approved nearly 90% of all female minority and 80% of all (white female applicants especially if the girls want to study math or science) while rejecting over 50% of white males this week and hope this trend holds out.
Mark Minter, I am sure that many men will benefit from that collection of links.
Thanks for posting them.
I wonder what the longer term effects upon feminism will be, as science continues to rip support out from under that sorry edifice? Some feminists, to be sure, will have to change their minds as the facts no longer support their beliefs. I expect such to be a rather small minority. What of the majority, and what of the louder, shriller, leadership? How will they reconcile science and what it tells us about human biology, with their blank-slate, “women are just men who can have babies” nonsense? Perhaps a doubling down on “women’s wisdom” claims, rejecting that nasty phallocentric “rational thinking”? A descent into ever fuzzier mysticism? Or active attempts to suppress scientific work that fails to support feminism? Maybe all of the above?
Whatever it is, it won’t be a good look…
@Anonymous Reader
It’s easier. It would take some time but the equality myth will be replaced by raw female supremacy.
Feminist will say something along the way of: “Yes, we get that man and woman are not equals. But the female sex is the more important sex because eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap. Every society has extracted resources from males to give them to females because women are the more valuable human beings. And a society cannot work without this flow of resources from men to women. So we (women) are entitled to it, for the good of society. More programs have to be enacted to protect women, to give them resources to raise kids as single moms. This is our right and this is good for society”.
Expect white knights and manginas to agree enthusiastically.
imnobody, that is a definite possibility, but the resources increasingly will be thin. Social Security and Medicare combined together dwarf everything else in the Federal US budget, and similar pension / health care for retirees programs are the dominant budget features of Europe. As more men wind up living at a lower level – through divorce, through having their creativity smashed by K-12 feminism, etc. the tax base just won’t be there. It isn’t there now, really, that is why the US borrows huge amounts of money every year. By 2020 (paging TFH) the debt services costs for the US will start to crowd out other Federal budget items. Some waggish writers in the econo-sphere have suggested that by 2030 the US will be ” a pension plan with an Army”, and the numbers point that way – the debt service has to be paid, Social Security has to be paid, babymommas may not be so important in a few years.
But, to return to your point, a doubling down by teh special snowflake wimmenz and their white knight social / traditional conservative waterboys would certainly be feasible. They would have to resort to more shaming, more screaming, more force, to try to get more resources out of men.
Zed has described this as the “two sticks” approach, in contrast to the “carrot and stick”. Perhaps the doubling-down would be a “three sticks” route, since it would in essence be a bachelor tax, such as was seen in the fading stages of the Roman empire. In Rome, whole families sold themselves into slavery in order to pay debts, now with Bradley we just put men in debtor’s prison. A doubling down – a “three sticks” policy – would have the opposite effect to what was stated as the goal. It would push more men into the grey economy, the cash economy, or onto various forms of social welfare such as Social Security disability. It would not lead many to “man up”…
So, short run you could be right. And then, when that fails, what next for feminists and their White Knght water carriers, I wonder?
@Anonymous Reader
Completely agree with you. I explained the position that feminists are likely to follow. I haven’t said that it is economically sustainable. In fact, I am convinced that this will speed up the decline and fall of society.
As all IT people know, sometimes you have to do a reboot for things to start working again. Western Civ is getting worse and worse and the reboot is closer and closer.
Pingback: But we were in love! | Dalrock
@AR;
“So, short run you could be right. And then, when that fails, what next for feminists and their White Knight water carriers, I wonder?”
Cutting-edge SWPL feminists will start agitating to polygamously marry their wealthy fathers? And have the Untermenschen (all younger men) bound to him/them, as thralls?
…
Yuk. I’ve just successfully nauseated even myself. Better get to the offie and retrieve some ales before it shuts, to wash the taste away. Hypergamy doesn’t care, does it? They .. will .. do [/yoda]
Pingback: Click Worthy 4/18/2013 | the Life of Liz
Pingback: Thoughts on Avoiding LTRs | Free Northerner
One hears this a lot. …But if one accepts that the women denouncing guys like Frank are themselves typical Western sluts, then there’s no mystery. Western women, with a tiny number of exceptions, are incapable of truly repenting of sexual sin (that even includes most of the red-pill broads who write here). Sad but true. A few tears of self-pity & a quick confession and hey presto! All is forgotten! They’re born-again virgins! …And they are now justified in seeking fresh flesh to devour. Regardless of the fact their whoring has rendered them totally unworthy of a decent Christian man, and incapable of appreciating him (or bonding properly).
Just think of it: if you’re a guy who’s been in Christian circles for any length of time, you’ve surely heard many a Christian man confess what a piece of **** he was, before God saved him; how appallingly he treated his wife; how he neglected his kids; what a selfish jerk he was and how he didn’t deserve a wife, or anything other than to burn in Hell — but, through God’s mercy, that worthless creep was turned around. Tears are much harder for men than women, but you’ve probably even seen men cry about their sin.
…And how often have you heard a woman confess anything like this? When have you ever heard a woman say, “I was a filthy slut and deserved Hell, but despite my selfishness and ungodly lusts, and my behaving worse than a whore, God saved me.”?
What do you hear instead from women?
Usually it’s, “Oh yes, I admit it: I’m a sinner — I’ve made my share of mistakes, I confess it.” …You might, for obviously serious sin, get a histrionic and unfelt display of self-hatred, which really only fishes for “it wasn’t your fault” and lots of circular back-rubbing from the sisterhood. You may even get a few easy tears as they ‘feel the moment’. And that’s pretty much all you’ll get. You’ll never hear a woman confess to being a worthless slut, and unworthy of a good husband, and weep in earnest over her wickedness — yet so many men do.
But as I say, women (at least modern ones) don’t really repent: they have a false picture of God as their daddy, and look forward to their entitlements as a daughter of the King. They like appearing saintly and making pious prayers. Show them a few of the passages on what God said should happen to sluts and they’ll wince with distaste and move swiftly onto the stuff about love: suggest a woman should acknowledge what God says she deserves, and you’ll be denounced as a judgemental Pharisee.
I remember seeing an interview with an ex-slut who’d been a whore and then a porn ‘actress’: I think she’d been abused and had (like most women) used this as an excuse to push the self-destruct-through-indulgence button and go and spread her legs for every alpha she could find. She went on the street ad began doing it for money and then went into porn. At some point she got hooked on smack. Then (she said) she’d had some vision of (or imagined) Jesus watching and weeping while she was getting stuffed. She didn’t stop plying her trade at first, but in the end, it got to her and she quit and “gave her heart to Jesus” and set up a ministry to other whores/porn-sluts.
But there was no obvious sense of shame about her past. No, Jesus had washed it all away. …So now she was busy pointing out how so many guys are using porn: she said with a smile that a huge number of pastors are hooked on the stuff (she appeared almost glad that they were caught up in the same sin as she had been; presumably it helped her self-esteem). And so the focus was shifted from the gross sin of the slut who had been engaging in filth for cash without shame to the poor saps who are struggling to stay pure in a pornified culture and falling over the stumbling-block she’d produced & put in their way, to their private shame.
Nope. Women don’t repent. Hence the church is full of sluts unworthy of marriage.
…And it’s why Christ didn’t entrust His church to women.
This is what I’ve long thought. A chaste man who marries an unchaste woman is either despised or pitied in her eyes, and that makes for a huge fault-line through the very heart of their union. That’s just the way it is. Sex is then no more the delight that God intended for the marriage-bed: it’s anxiety and/or humiliation for him and shame and/or disappointment for her. The best they can hope for is a skewed relationship where the man is effectively the woman’s redeemer, and has to do all the forgiving & forgetting whilst she has to do all the accepting of his forgiveness. That’s not a healthy marriage dynamic by any means. Yet one sees it all over the place, now. …With predictable results.
As @alcestiseshtemoa says, assortive mating is best.
And @donalgraeme’s qualification is correct, I think, too. Women simply don’t feel and love in the same way as men: a man’s past to a woman is not as a woman’s to a man. In fact, I find a woman often likes to boast that her man was a rake in his youth — advertising his alpha credentials, and the fact that it was she who hooked him. (As though she was the girl who tamed James Bond.) Male love is different: it is jealous and expressed physically through sex. It’s broken when sex is broken. Again, that’s just the way God made us.
O, that women would know this and relent…
Pingback: Linkage: Lovestruck » Paul's Ponderings
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/04/24 | Free Northerner
I’m starting to get fed up with being told, despite practicing a virtuous life, despite rejecting the advances of women who have wanted to ride …, that I have no right to desire a woman who has also made the same sacrifices and stayed a virgin
Your situation really reminds me of anonymous’
Except that I very early on figured out that holding out for a fellow virgin, would narrow my candidate pool to nearly zero. I gave up that requirement probably around 20. Not that I considered it wrong, but it was just too narrow a filter.
I only get endless shaming to shut up, marry up a slut or a single mom with 3 failed marriages and 5 kids. That’s my reward for keeping Mister Slappywankles benched all these years?
I actually dated the sluts and single moms, so nobody shamed me for not doing so. However I was “shamed” for not wanting to date fatties. Despite the fact that I ran thousands of miles and pumped countless tons of iron during those years, and it showed! That’s my reward for working out like a maniac all these years?
Pingback: TBLA(9): the idolatry of romantic love (i) | Elizaphanian
Pingback: Raping the English Language | Something Fishy
http://news.yahoo.com/history-marriage-13-surprising-facts-111746260.html
“Now, most Americans see marriage as a bond between equals that’s all about love and companionship. [I Don’t: 5 Myths About Marriage]
That changing definition has paved the way for same-sex marriage and Wednesday’s (June 26) Supreme Court rulings, which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and dismissed a case concerning Proposition 8.”
Pingback: Conservatives ask: Who is John Galt? | Dalrock
http://truelovedoesntwait.com/the-path-to-mariage/young-marriage/real-men-marry/
Pingback: The elevation of romantic love and the wisdom of a beta orbiter. | Dalrock
Pingback: Who loves best? | Dalrock
Pingback: Gay “marriage” is both a cause and a result of the destruction of traditional marriage. | Sunshine Mary
Pingback: Dude got a wake-up call. | Dalrock
I love this, Dalrock. I have had similar reflections but have never been able to articulate them so succinctly. My children will be reading this in 8-10 years.
Pingback: The final logical conclusion of “dating” is finally upon us. — courtshippledge.com
Pingback: Loving in the Ruins
Pingback: Romance and Marriage… Go Together Like a Horse and Carriage? | Loving in the Ruins
Thank you for this post Connor.I think when men realise the amount of masculinity & macho they can tap into, thats when they become alpha
Pingback: Is marriage just a piece of paper? | Dalrock
Pingback: Wedding season | Something Fishy
Pingback: Keeping The Reward | Donal Graeme
Pingback: One at a time, please. | Dalrock
Pingback: We didn’t follow the Bible, and it didn’t work, so let’s try any alternative other than the Bible | Moose Norseman
Pingback: From celibate boyfriend to celibate husband (true love doesn’t wait). | Dalrock
Pingback: Marriage is what Legitimizes Romantic Love and Sex | Secular Patriarchy
Pingback: Denying that marriage has moral meaning is the new virtue. | Dalrock
Pingback: 50 SoG movie panned as too tame. | Dalrock
Pingback: Custody of the heart. | Dalrock
Pingback: Women Behaving Badly |
Pingback: What is closeness? | Dalrock
Pingback: Was it real? | Dalrock
Pingback: Wives & Lovers |
Pingback: Destruction of morals and the idolization of romantic love | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere
Pingback: Was it real? | Honor Dads
Pingback: The Cult of the Virgin Mary and Romance - Henry Dampier
Pingback: Shades of Gnosticism | Something Fishy
Pingback: Don’t blame Heartiste for the equation of Alpha with virtue. | Dalrock
Pingback: Robolove | Dalrock
Pingback: Broken Premisses | Dalrock
Pingback: Is it robolove or robolust? | Dalrock
Pingback: Men Are Officially Functionally Obsolete | Retrophoebia
Pingback: Men do not pursue women | Christianity and the manosphere
Pingback: He didn’t know it was her turn. | Dalrock
Pingback: Rubbing body parts together. | Dalrock
Pingback: Was it true love? | Dalrock
Pingback: Legitimacy in the post-legitimate world | American Dad
Pingback: Premarital Sex Brought Her Closer to God |
Pingback: Red Pill knowledge is poison to marriage
Pingback: Blinded by chivalry. | Dalrock
Pingback: Chapter 11: Relationships – Posthumanity
Pingback: Does romantic love sanctify married sex? | Dalrock