I buy my own diamonds and I buy my own rings
Only ring your celly when I’m feelin’ lonely
When it’s all over, please get up and leave–Beyoncé, Independent Woman
Ladies, it is time to reject outdated ideas like showing off proof of your man’s investment in you in the form of jewelry! Those baubles are signs that he owns you; cast off the golden shackles of the patriarchy!
And yet as I pointed out before, when Beyoncé wants to pull rank on other women she rolls out the title of Mrs. Now Beyoncé has something else to brag about, a new bracelet. It is hard to imagine the Daily Mail gushing about a multimillionaire giving his wife a $2,000 piece of jewelry, but clearly there is something special about this particular bracelet. In an age of feminist pretense this bracelet scratches an itch which can’t be openly admitted. It is fascinating to watch the marketing video dance around the allure it holds:
Despite the dancing around, the women commenting on youtube clearly are entranced by the idea of wearing a bracelet which locks and can only be removed by their man:
In years gone by, men would use a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puzzle_ring
Still, it’s interesting to see the differences between thoughts and actions of feminists.
As fate would have it, this just now came out in print:
Yajin Wang and Vladas Griskevicius. Conspicuous Consumption, Relationships, and Rivals: Women’s Luxury Products as Signals to Other Women. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 40, No. 5 (February 2014), pp. 834-854.
“Whereas men often display luxury products to the opposite sex, women often seek to flaunt expensive possessions to the same sex.”
The purpose of a female having male beta orbiters/BB providers is to accumulate enough mass to capture female orbiters. NOT to trade “up” from BB to AF.
@jf12
That study backs up a lot of the previous research on the topic.
—
Related: http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2013/12/with-this-ring-i-thee-wed.html
They choose go all in and get chastity devices if they want a man to be their “keyholder” They make some nice ones, some are bejewelled and everything.
women are a font of hypocrisy.
Interesting: http://chastityproject.com/2014/02/the-devil-wants-you-to-settle-in-your-relationship/
Yea Marcus, don’t you love her, “wait for the perfect man God has planned for you!” haha, I can be sure as bells this women fucked her way to Bobby Angel, no questions asked.
“It’s different for me, different when I do it” – not novel,nor new.
So despite mouthing slogans, Beyonce is still a woman, with a woman’s motives and desires.
No one should be surprised by this. That some are surprised by this simply indicates there is more work to be done in handing out The Glasses…
Anon Reader:
Yes. All this does is point up that when you have strongindependent women ™, a man must be even stronger and even more independent; else attraction won’t be present or sustainable. Beyonce needs lots of alpha confidence/dominance; nothing else will suffice.
Re: devil “I was like a hamster on crack”
Beyonce is a typical feminist in that she is all “Do as I say, not as I do.” It is easy to encourage other women to adopt strong-n-independent lives when she herself is a married mother with an alpha-type husband. And she won’t be there to comfort women who follow her narrative when they end up alone. She does young women a disservice.
Re: devil “Does your relationship help you to be freer or less free? Is your relationship life-giving or life-sucking?” and all the men answered in a chorus of bellows ….
Re: devil “Out of all the very many hot men I dated, this guy was the hottest. And he just happened to be holy, too.”
I have to admit after watching the video for the bracelet that even though it’s too expensive, I sort of want one.
They have a smart marketing department.
Vietnamese women are so hot…
@MarcusD
That was… interesting. There could have been some positive points made with that, but that wasn’t what happened, at all. I was also picking up major Christo-Feminist vibes from that woman, although I didn’t investigate to back up those suspicions.
It’s probably evidence of how bernankified I am, but I see this bracelet as an extremely tasteless piece of jewelry. It has *fifty shades of grey* written all over it.
Boxer’s revision of Marx’s theorem: I wouldn’t want a woman who would wear my locking bracelet. lol
I know plenty of men who would pick that lock… especially for a night with another man’s Asian beauty. I can get a much better gun safe for $2,000, and it would give me better piece of mind to protect the things I love.
SSM
I have to admit after watching the video for the bracelet that even though it’s too expensive, I sort of want one.
Sure. Just like you want “your tribe” to go someday go out and murder entire groups of men that are offensive to you.
Both are clear manifestations of the Female Imperative…
8oxer
It’s probably evidence of how bernankified I am, but I see this bracelet as an extremely tasteless piece of jewelry. It has *fifty shades of grey* written all over it.
Yes, it obviously has 50 shades all over it. Why should this surprise? As rich as Beyonce is, the amount of Alpha her hypergamy demands is very, very high. Is it a coincidence that BD / SM has apparently become more common, more widespread, in the last 40 years? I do not think so. There’s more to “possession” than jewelry…
deti
Yes. All this does is point up that when you have strongindependent women ™, a man must be even stronger and even more independent; else attraction won’t be present or sustainable. Beyonce needs lots of alpha confidence/dominance; nothing else will suffice.
Deti for the win. “Alpha” is relative to the women’s status. The higher status any given woman or group of women accrue, the higher the level of Alpha they will require for attraction.
Man, I’m not getting any useful work done today, between JustFourGuys and this site.
Time to close this browser down.
Any woman who insists on keeping her maiden name, or a hyphenated surname should have no problem returning her wedding ring or reimbursing her “husband” for the cost.
I’m sure women have only half a brain, at best, and what they have they don’t even use. To be a “Mother with benefits” to a man/husband would be incest. Mothers aren’t supposed to fuck their kids. How do they come up with this diatribe?
Anyone else notice the “wait for the perfect ONe seems to work mainly for high status Chrian men / attractive Christian women. Rockbandrummer 4 Jesus meets blonde model4Jesus. It is like the hollywood date movie script.
♫ I’ll Take All My Sh*t and All Yours Too ♫
New single from Beyoncé, dropping 3.15.14 in stores everywhere.
If that speech about the beauty of that bracelet was from a fat chick, I might listen.
If that speech about the beauty of that bracelet was from an Asian chick, I might listen.
But being that that speech was from a fat Asian chick, I was like, WTF? Why is this fat-ass Asian chick giving me a speech about the beauty of a bracelet????
Even if I were otherwise unable to shed my inner beta, this video would shake me free and allow me to do it.
Sooo, I tell my husband about this bracelet that can only be unlocked by keyholder *spouse or whatever*
Him:: Heh, a mark of ownership, eh?
Me: Yeah. A sort of submission without admitting it, I suppose.
Him: Should be handcuffs. Modern women are nuts.
Me: LOL
Him: No, wait, it should be a collar. Probably a choke one.
Reblogged this on Crop Circles in the Carpet and commented:
Here’s the comment I left on the Darock site: Sooo, I tell my husband about this bracelet that can only be unlocked by keyholder *spouse or whatever*
Him:: Heh, a mark of ownership, eh?
Me: Yeah. A sort of submission without admitting it, I suppose.
Him: Should be handcuffs. Modern women are nuts.
Me: LOL
Him: No, wait, it should be a collar. Probably a choke one.
Prince of Darkness, Father of Lies, Promoter of Marriage.
The Real Peterman says:
February 17, 2014 at 5:17 pm
What they are promoting isn’t marriage. Marriage is a type, an example, of when Christ marries His bride the Church. What these people are pushing isn’t what God has ordained as marriage.
You know, I am not sure why SSM keeps getting heat for that comment. For one thing, it was an analogy, not a prescription. She was playing off another analogy from a man describing himself as a brutal marauder and slaver. For the other, do any of you still languish under the delusion that this is going to get solved without bloodshed? Pick a tribe, boys and girls, because the men are going to have to settle this as men do, and it will be nasty.
As far as the bracelet goes, it is not surprising. Take a closer look at how women like to be held, those romantic and comforting little embraces. They are very vulnerable positions to be in a fight. Women like the idea of being held in submission. This is simply an extention of that.
The Shadowed Knight
Do any of you still languish under the delusion that this is going to get solved without bloodshed? Pick a tribe, boys and girls, because the men are going to have to settle this as men do, and it will be nasty.
Co-sign.
I can’t help but think the Beyonce, Mrs I waited 28yrs for my perfect guy, and feminist in general, mislead women in the same way. That being, what might have been reserved for a few, should now be the goal of the masses.
@theshadowedknight and @redpillsetmefree
What bloodshed are you guys talking about. And no, not all men settle things with bloodshed. That’s usually caused by some asshole alpha, who usually gets a bunch of betas to do most of the fighting and dying.
Dalrock, this piece demands your response/mockery:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/02/how-to-save-marriage-in-america/283732/
Sick bucket…pass it.
I recall seeing a not dissimilar device from days gone by, not for the wrist but rather for a different part of the female anatomy… Until they bring that back we’ll never restore order.
Soon I expect the jewelry marketers will offer jewelry to show a woman’s proof of investments. I’m picturing a handsome chain for men, attaches to and locks closed his wallet and only his special lady has the key.
…regarding the tinkly-music video and bracelet concept – not your blog.
Miss Special Snowflake Jewelry “designer” (who has an irksome habit of ending statements with a question-like inflection) had such a great idea. Then, of course, it’s the male mind that turns some silly napkin pipe dream into a 3 dimensional production-ready reality. You go GRRRLL!
JG, in the final reckoning, any problem that cannot be solved with words will be settled by arms. A war is coming. The tribes are shaking out now. Pick your tribe, and stick with them.
When it comes to it, the man who is willing to fight is the one who will lead. The man who kills is the man who leads. The man who can force his enemies to do his will is the man who leads. Do or die.
The Shadowed Knight
theshadowedknight says: February 17, 2014 at 6:45 pm
“You know, I am not sure why SSM keeps getting heat for that comment.”
Because she slavishly defended that comment in her comment thread. I was done after hearing her do that 3 times. Anonymous Reader hung in longer and caught her non-apology for it.
We will be ready for her tribe when she sends them out on the hunt.
@Darlockfan
Not Darlock but imho the HIP marriages might succeed well in this modern age as I can even see them staying together for financial reasons after the kids leave. Maybe. I would however predict lots on cheating on both sides.
@theshadowedknight
I still have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Are you one of those doomsday preppers? The only tribe I belong to is a follower of Christ and we are more of the turn the cheek and put our trust in Christ type of tribe.
Rollo said Any woman who insists on keeping her maiden name, or a hyphenated surname should have no problem returning her wedding ring or reimbursing her “husband” for the cost.
I know that in principle I should agree with that, but my inner “red pill conscience” seems to be grumbling “any schmuck who would marry a woman who refused to take his surname —all of it— DESERVES to be fleeced for a piece expensive jewelry as a lesson.
New single from Beyoncé,
We should be so lucky as to watch Beyotchce become last year’s news, to the point where she’s so broke and desperate that she follows Toni Braxton’s lead and humiliates herself on a reality TV show that’s a parody of her former life. Of course that would require JayZ to swallow a medicine ball-sized red pill first…
jg
this is what reality looks like and it happens real fast. http://shtfschool.com/survival-psychology/common-sense-survival-the-return-of-natural-selection/
Not every body affected by feminism and liberalism is talking about it in the manosphere. A huge bunch are arming up for a fight and so is our own government.
http://www.salon.com/2014/02/16/porn_addictive_theres_no_proof/
Take note of the author and of the comments (plus, a reference to “the Wall”).
Rather interesting to note that Canada is copying Iceland by using the Internet when it comes to public consultation on laws: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/curr-cours/proscons-conspros/
CAF:
Husband and I not having sex because we don’t want children.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=860322
Hard situation with my husband, could use some guidance
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=860557
Advice for a single catholic on dating and relationships (Go Go Gadget Hypergamy!)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=860467
—
Seaparated last Wednesday (Read the first four lines at the very least.)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=860247
CAF
Husband and I not having sex because we don’t want children.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=860322
Hard situation with my husband, could use some guidance
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=860557
Advice for a single catholic on dating and relationships (Go Go Gadget Hypergamy!)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=860467
Separated last Wednesday
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=860247
Re: separated “our marriage has to finally succumb and die” convenient summation.
Seriously, though, just like when there is adultery, whenever any actual abandonment occurs, there is no more marriage. It is already over. If there is reconciliation, then the new relationship will be a different relationship than the old one, which already died.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/10632442/Sex-is-not-just-for-younger-women-new-scientific-study-shows.html
“The authors were surprised to find that sexual function, as measured by the index, failed to predict whether the women continued to have sex.”
New scientific study redefines dismal as ok.
Interesting: http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/charting02/Parenting.htm
(Notice a few WAW Effect symptoms in the charts)
I’m puzzled about MarcusD’s fascination with the Catholic Answers Forum at Catholic.com. If he’s searching for a church that only admits perfect people, MarcusD won’t find it in the one Jesus founded. Jesus came for those in need of salvation. His 12 hand-picked apostles included weak men.
Any man that has his wife take off and leave him with the kids should consider himself a lucky Mo Fo
I’m puzzled about MarcusD’s fascination with the Catholic Answers Forum at Catholic.com. If he’s searching for a church that only admits perfect people, MarcusD won’t find it in the one Jesus founded. Jesus came for those in need of salvation. His 12 hand-picked apostles included weak men.
I think his point is how much confusion and outright rebellion there is, even in a church where the doctrine is clearly spelled out in a well-organized and clearly worded text like the CCC.
About 25% of Americans are childless not by choice, including older adults who never had children and younger adults who would have liked to have already had children but who cannot find reproductive partners, as well as partnered adults of reproductive age who are infertile,
http://www.involuntarychildless.com/
The ever-had-children rates are markedly similar across Western countries.
http://www.vaestoliitto.fi/@Bin/850179/YB+2010_Miettinen,+pp.+5%1324.pdf
About 18% of women who have reached the end of the reproductive age (e.g. 49) are biologically childless, compared with 27% of men of the same age. Uniformly across age cohorts, men are 50% more likely to be childless, only about half by choice.
A surprising event:
Last week my wife separated from me after 17 years of marriage and two daughters – 16,14 now with me.
When we met, she had just become a Christian (later became Catholic) and I thought she was absolutely beautiful. We went out for 3 years before getting married, and although we never had intercourse before marriage our relationship was sexual at times.
She brought a lot of baggage into our relationship from many angles, including alocoholic, controling parents and many boyfriends, and I had to absorb a lot of this which at times was very painful.
For 14 years our marriage seemed very stable and secure. We could afford for her to be a stay at home Mum which she wanted to be. We were both happy and committed Catholics.
So a modern woman who has had many sexual partners and is an unstable alcoholic is content to “date” a man for three years, no sex, no marriage…… she was NEVER attracted to him. Now, I’m not saying that some women couldn’t actually do this, I’m simply saying that multiple prior partner alcoholic is probably not one of them. She probably cheated on him while they were dating. And continued when they were married. He should have his kids paternity tested. Anyone want to lay odds they aren’t his?
Given that one of them is 16-year old kid, conceived before he claims he ever had sex with her (non-sexual for first three years of a 17-year relationship) I’d say it’s quite likely, unless I’m reading his story wrong.
It’d be one thing if one of these guys who took on the responsibility of raising another man’s kid was respected by the woman, but these guys almost never are. I know people like this. They fall in love, take on the baggage of an extra kid, and are given no thanks at all for it. I also know guys who have accepted a wife back after she’s cheated. They are treated with contempt afterwards also.
When it comes to the modern, empowered wimminz, no good or noble deed goes unpunished.
Beyoncé is still a woman. Women love to be pursued like that. It’s a turn on.
dragonflytattoo:
Beyonce is a woman, but she’s Beyonce.
And she will love to be pursued like that, but only by a man who is even stronger and more powerful than she is. And that’s not many men.
It’s a turn on if, and only if, the man is even more alpha and even stronger and even more independent than she is. Again — not many men.
Boxer says: “Given that one of them is 16-year old kid, conceived before he claims he ever had sex with her (non-sexual for first three years of a 17-year relationship) I’d say it’s quite likely, unless I’m reading his story wrong.”
You’re reading it wrong. He claims 3 years of relationship prior to marriage, followed by 17 years of marriage.
@Micha Elyi
? Okay…
I mean, as it stands, you’ve been able to misconstrue what I’ve written before, but how did you get the above impression from my postings?
—
That’s certainly part of it.
It’s a forum I read daily and I post links of threads relevant to our discussions here. I don’t know if that’s a “fascination” according to Micha Elyi, or some instance of searching for a church “that only admits perfect people.”
On the topic of CAF and rebellion, for those who are struggling to understand the significance I would ask just one question: Where is the forum the Catholics who aren’t in rebellion go to meet/discuss things online? This isn’t a problem limited to Catholics, as you would find the same thing (and I would ask the same question) regarding christianforums.com . If these folks in rebellion are the outliers, where do the real deals meet?
@jf12
Yes, advanced maternal age is certainly an issue.
4.1 of http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2013/08/career-or-marriage-or-both.html
is relevant
I find it interesting that NOW was so opposed to a fertility awareness campaign in New York.
There are other Catholic forums, but they are a lot smaller than CAF. CAF, I think, serves as a fairly good measurement of the state of Western Catholicism.
If you want orthodox/trad Catholicism, you can go to, for example: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/
That said, there’s still heterodoxy there, too (though, not as much as CAF — e.g. http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=386.0).
(Other sites: http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/List_of_traditional_Catholic_websites)
Re: NOW opposition. In accordance with my own theme for this week (of women desperately seeking ways to avoid undesired men), I propose that the reason that more women are not more fervently seeking to educate young women about the reality of fertility is the certain knowledge that it would lead to more undesired men reproducing.
Women would rather be objectified than idolized.
I’ll just leave this here:
How many male groupies does Beyoncé have? Which female artist has the largest percentage of (hetero) male groupies (if any!)?
You’re reading it wrong. He claims 3 years of relationship prior to marriage, followed by 17 years of marriage.
I wonder if the 17 year old was born prematurely.
If I had to guess:
“the certain knowledge that it would lead to more undesired men reproducing”
I sure wouldn’t be surprised. Certainly that’s a strain of thought that shows up in radical feminist writing from time to time, “we should get rid of 95% of men and keep the hunkiest ones to propagate the species” and so on.
Here is another barrier broken by a “strong and independent woman”. This type of thing make women even less attractive to most guys….
http://xfinity.comcast.net/video/Breaking-a-Barrier-A-Woman-Plays-Professional-Football/158066755544/Comcast/Today_in_Video/?cid=hero_sf
MarcusD, Feb 18, 12:51 am:
The man in the 17 year marriage where wife just separated from him: Reading the full comment makes diagnosis pretty simple, really. Has it all:
Wife had lots of baggage going into the marriage.
He quit work to finish his college degree; she worked to support the family.
Both lost jobs.
She had an online emotional affair.
She’s unsubmissive and in outright rebellion to her husband’s spiritual authority in the marriage.
He doesn’t assert his spiritual authority in the marriage.
She is already preparing the history revision, flat out telling him she hasn’t loved him since she was pregnant with her older child.
He’s supplicating and pedestalizing her, talking about how she is so gentle, kind, modest and giving.
Differential diagnosis:
1. Complete loss of attraction; or, more likely,
2. Never was attracted in the first place
Legion, she was playing off an analogy from a man that explicitly said he was preying on the weak. Why is Runs on Magic not getting piled on for that? I get the you and him fight aspect of it, but when someone makes threats, you have few options. I would be defending her if she was totally serious.
It is not the Feminine Imperative to defend one’s women and civilization. Society need boundaries and limits, especially when it concerns sex and reproduction. If you do not care for the rules, find someplace else to live. You will have options: obey, leave… or die.
JG, if you want to lay down for your throat to be cut, that is fine by me. I will not be doing the same. If you want something you have to fight for it. Force your enemy to lay down in arms in fear, not because he is tired from the slaughter.
The Shadowed Knight
@deti
Well, he knew those things about her (e.g. baggage) before marrying her, so I don’t have as much sympathy for him.
That baggage is likely symptomatic of other problems (e.g. novelty-seeking).
Re: Taylor Swift. Really? Hmm. If I had to guess, she’d be among my last guesses. Even given the huge age gap, I’m believe myself to be fairly aware that the vast majority of her fans are young teen girls. But you could be right and maybe she has more male fans than I would have given her credit for.
My guesses, among major women singers/performers noted primarily for their skill instead of sluttiness, would be Alison Krauss and Martina McBride.
@craig:
Thanks man, that makes sense.
MarcusD:
True, but 17 or 14 or whatever the hell years it was ago, whenever this chump got married, feminism was in its heyday. Men were encouraged to let their own rationalization hamsters go wild and cover up (even by lying to themselves) for the shortcomings of women. I imagine this was especially true if the object of the pretty lies was a woman who was offering to provide you with sex for the rest of your life.
This site and those like it do a good job of detranscendentalizing the sexual marketplace today, but they weren’t available in the mid 1990s. The best you could do back then, I imagine, is pick up a copy of Iceberg Slim’s memoirs at the library. lol
@jg1
I found clips of her three carries on Youtube. It is about what you would expect. She gets tossed through the air on the middle carry at 19 seconds. To her credit though, she gets up immediately after all three hits.
The funny thing is this is definitive proof that women playing football against men is absurd, and yet it is billed as “The first woman to do X”.
The woman football player has a better claim to being strong than Beyoncé, if you ask me. I don’t know what’s so strong about getting on a stage and singing overproduced pablum.
Re: learning from pimps. Pimps have a much wider latitude in how they treat women, and stereotypically the tools they use are based on the women’s extreme dread of (from witnessing or experiencing) physical injury and disfigurement, being disappeared, loss of access to drugs, hostage to threats of hurting loved ones, etc. Has there been a deconstruction of pimping behavioral elements, like the PUA community performed for seduction behaviors?
Its very frustrating as women start populating the whole male space as they are doing now, there no are places for men to guy stuff anymore. I wonder if she will shower with the guys in the locker room or as expected get special treatment because she is the special snowflake in the team?
I read the CAF story entirely differently. He does not say she was alcoholic, but that her parents were – though I suspect he means that they are merely heavy drinkers – still he is not marrying them. He further does not say that she had previously been sexually active, merely that she had many boyfriends and although he says he found that very painful he does not say why. It is hard for me to see exactly where the baggage is – no hint of STDs, Abortions, Marriages or Cohabitation, or debt. He thus seems most unlucky. He seems to have the de facto custody of the daughters, so I am guessing she is going EPL, finding herself, trying out a new-age religion probably with a man called Marco – that sort of thing.
Even strong independent women should want to put the forks in the dishwasher themselves.
Hansen, Thomas and Slagsvold, Britt. Home Equality. 2012. NOVA Rapport 8/2012. Norwegian Institute for Research on Adolescence, Welfare and Aging, Oslo, NO.
http://www.hioa.no/eng/content/download/45462/674663/file/5912_1.pdf
I wonder if it’s just an attempt to minimize the impact married life has on the behaviors and attitudes from their single life.
@MarcusD
Thanks for the links to the Catholic Forums.I really enjoy reading them.They make me thank God everyday for being born Orthodox Jewish.Shalom!
That piece of store-bought jewelry attempts to simulate marriage but in material form only. Fifty Shades of Grey is another attempt by females to find a substitute to numb her natural craving for marriage.
“He further does not say that she had previously been sexually active, merely that she had many boyfriends and although he says he found that very painful he does not say why.”
I think your reading of the CAF note is quite charitable. This marriage and courtship between this man and his wife only goes back to about 1994, then marriage 3 years later in 1997. So assuming these are people dating in the early 90s and marrying in the mid 90s, with a woman who is a recent convert to Christianity, we’re talking about a woman who quite likely slept with most, if not all, of her boyfriends.
Most women who were dating at that time and reaching any level of seriousness with men were also having sex with those men. To most such women, sexual activity is part of the territory — if she’s dating, she’s having sex with most all the men she’s dating.
@Deti
“”if she’s dating, she’s having sex with most all the men she’s dating.””
Of course she is:
“”At the very
least, a man will always be weakened in proportion
to the amount of time he spends with
a female. They have a natural ability to drain
the male, both mentally and physically. This
makes him easier to control and more susceptible
to her entreaties.””
The Predatory Female,Rev.Laurence Shannon,Part 23.
@Deti
Clearly I had overlooked the fact that when a woman becomes a Christian she does so to escape her promiscuous past. I must say I was wondering how in America one wasn’t born to Christianity: In other words she was a born-again Christian – thus a penitent-slut keen to make herself marriageable. If that is the case here then she was more or less prick-teasing the guy for three years, even as she slowly revealed to him bit-by-bit her past, and the lurid details – turning the guy into a cuckold – making him wait for what she had previously given away for free. Then when marriage is no longer to her taste (that is to say when his income is not what it was) she ditches not just her husband but also her religion – that is to say the religion she acquired form him – Roman Catholicism.
I wish these writers at CAF (and the women who come here) would be clearer in their witness statements!
@Opus
“”Clearly I had overlooked the fact that when a woman becomes a Christian she does so to escape her promiscuous past. I must say I was wondering how in America one wasn’t born to Christianity: In other words she was a born-again Christian – thus a penitent-slut keen to make herself marriageable””
Thanks!….This is why I consider Christianity to be a crock of shit! I was born Orthodox Jewish….and will die as such! People become “born again Christians” to alleviate their pasts?….100% garbage! They use Christianity to try and make people believe that the “tiger has changed his stripes”……they do not! The biggest tramps and most useless whores I have ever met are “born again Christians”…..Go Figure!
If she does not have sex with you on the first date, she is obviously either not interested or alternatively she is exacting a higher price. To avoid this I found that the solution was not to have a first date until one had had sex – the date then being optional, a thank you for services rendered. It also gives one a chance to find out things about her, such as her name.
Q. Why marriage game?
A. Even strong independent women want to be possessed.
@TFH
“”I can attest from personal experience, and all Game practitioner will back me, that almost any woman born in the West will have sex on the second date.””
Second date?…..Wow!…that is a long time to wait! To speed up the process a bit and cut through the chase……..”Would you like to get a case of beer and go screw?…..or don’t you like beer”?……The usual response….”I love beer”………Viola!…….2 dates is much too much time to waste for sex.Remember something….”If it flies,floats or fucks…it is always cheaper to rent!
@Opus
“”It also gives one a chance to find out things about her, such as her name.””
Lmao!……that sounds like a lot of work!…..too much for me!
Opus
That is how it is done. Never date, hook up and call back the pussy until it stops then get yourself another one. Good advice for a young man today.
“In other words she was a born-again Christian – thus a penitent-slut keen to make herself marriageable.”
Not “born again Christian”. Born again VIRGIN.
@Opus
There is one more aspect to this which you left out. Each of her previous hops on the carousel (and this is critical) were instances of men victimizing her. She pulled a train with school sports team? She was victimized by men! She blew a guy in a dark corner at the club? Another victimization! etc, etc.
Her slutty past isn’t something she should repent of, nor should she appreciate her husband’s magnanimity in overlooking it when choosing her for a wife. He owes her for the sins of the men in her past. This would be very difficult to overstate.
The is Bondage Lite. Symbolic restraint. Many of the music video threads on my blog have pictures of women wearing jewelry with similar motifs.
50 Shades of Grey is popular for a reason.
@HR
Wasn’t the Grey character wealthy? According to a lot of research woman are looking for resource acquisition potential first in a partner (for LTRs, at least).
I posted some recent research a few threads back.
@MarcusD
I’ve never actually read it – all my women friends into this sort of thing that did said it was terrible – but yeah, Mr. Grey is ultra-wealthy, ultra-masculine, ultra-intelligent, and ultra-manly. It’s a hypergamy fantasy, of course.
But this particular piece of jewelry is hardly new or unique. This has been done a million times before. Someone mentioned the “puzzle rings” upthread.
In fact, next time you’re at a dinner party, notice the women wearing chokers. It’s like the least best kept secret ever.
Pingback: “Darwinism is Racist”: Creationists Attack John Derbyshire | Occam's Razor
Ah yes, 50 Shades of Gray: happily I have read it twice – at least what is available to view on Amazon. This is what happens: Anastasia Steele, English (I think that very important) is an undergraduate at a University in the mid-west (no explanation given for this unexpected fact) who stands in for her friend who was going to interview Billionaire Entrpeneur Christian Gray for the University Magazine. He is head of Gray Enterprises and works from that companies skyscraper in Seattle, so Anastasia drives there. On arriving – and being intimidated by the glossy-secretary, and whilst worrying that her hair is a mess – she sees Gray promising to have a round off golf with one of his African American employees (yeah, whatever). She is then shown into see him but trips on the carpet – great erotic potential there but entirely missed by the author.
The similarities with Hitchcock’s film of Du Maurier’s Rebecca are all too evident, where the richest man in England (and a sadistic bastard to boot) decides to marry an insecure professional-companion played by Joan Fontaine. The similarities with Emily Bronte’s Jane Eyre are also too apparent where, insecure Jane becomes a housekeeper to the richest man in England and a total bastard to boot (having locked his wife – the mad-woman – in the attic).
*Spoiler Alert* Reader, they all married him.
Sir,
I have been reading your blog for several months after a link from Glenn Reynolds Instapundit on how similar your arguments are to his wife’s book “Men on Strike”. Like you I am happily married but I have a friend a good man whose first and only marriage was to a serial divorcee that has ruined his life, his hopes and dreams.
I wonder if what you are writing about is what Isaiah saw when he prophesied this about the last days?
12 ¶As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. (Old Testament, Isaiah, Chapter 3)
Keep up your good work, hopefully some women and sycophantic men who read it will be brought unto repentance.
[D: Thank you, and welcome.]
SIW already ARE possessed with the spirits of rebellion and stubbornness i.e. like witchcraft and idolatry. What SIW need first is exorcism.
Aw come on, Opus, Rochester’s not all that bad. He was “raising” his sister’s daughter (I put raising in quotation marks because he seemed to go away a lot and leave her with the maid or governess, Jane). It is a very strange story though–now that I think of it, it doesn’t make much sense.
@jf12
When I first read your post, I took “SIW” to be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-inflicted_wound
(Still a bit early for me…)
@MarcusD, although not a heavily FPS gamer, outside of here the only use I’ve ever had for SIW was for to stand for Standard Issue Weapon in video game discussions (like Halo’s SMG versions).
Time to play catchup
theshadowedknight
You know, I am not sure why SSM keeps getting heat for that comment. For one thing, it was an analogy, not a prescription.
It was marching orders, and a fine display of the Female Imperative. “Go, kill all of the men who offend me, Men of My Tribe” is not new, it’s quite old. Blood feud as a tool for social policy has a pretty clear track record.
As a bonus, SSM claims to follow a certain religion. The restrictions that religion places upon murder are clear. Therefore, her angry outburst, on the order of “Will no man in my tribe rid me of these loathsome PUA’s” is in direct opposition to certain teachings of her claimed religion. This leads in turn to another question…
And shadowedknight, I grew up around veterans. Men who had seen real war in Europe, in the Pacific, in Korea, in Viet Nam. Sometimes they told young boys things, in direct ways or indirect ways, about the reality of combat. Sometimes they talked about stuff among themselves, and one who remained silent would learn things.
Don’t hunger for bloodshed, because if you get your wish, you’ll wish you had not.
MarcusD, you seem to have a strange relationship with CAF, is it the endless trainwreck aspect that you can’t look away from, is it the Diogenes-like search for someone there with a clue, or something else? I recall that Empathalogicalism had a similar fascination with one of the generic Christian sites – christianforums, I think? He was trying to convince people that they were wrong, and eventually gave up on it.
On the other hand, if you are pointing to CAF as an exemplar of “How Not To Do Roman Catholicism”, there appears to be a near-endless supply of examples.
theshadowednknight
Legion, she was playing off an analogy from a man that explicitly said he was preying on the weak. Why is Runs on Magic not getting piled on for that?
Why, indeed? Have you really thought this through?
I get the you and him fight aspect of it, but when someone makes threats, you have few options. I would be defending her if she was totally serious.
What she said was, when feminism is defeated, she expects the men of her tribe of Christ to seek out and kill PUA’s. So let’s say it’s 2021 and feminism has collapsed. What’s supposed to happen then? Is the retired Baptist minister down the block supposed to load up his shotgun, and walk down the block to the apartment complex where some young men have been known to have girls over for the night, knock on the door and when one of the young men opens it up, unload a few shells of buckshot into the chest, then walk home? Or is it supposed to be a list, where all the churchgoing men drive around town, dragging known PUA’s out of their dwellings and taking them out in the country for a last ride? How’s this mass murder supposed to work? And when does the killing stop, eh?
It is not the Feminine Imperative to defend one’s women and civilization.
Nowhere in her “Let’s My Tribe Of Christ Murder The Men I Don’t Like” posting did SSM use the word “defend”. She tried to pretend in a comment that she’d written that, but I saw through that immediately. She wants offense, not defense.
Society need boundaries and limits, especially when it concerns sex and reproduction. If you do not care for the rules, find someplace else to live. You will have options: obey, leave… or die.
Cool. So what is it that you, SSM and the others want? Something like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_B%C3%A9ziers
“Kill them all, God will know his own”, right?
Or maybe this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Magdeburg
JG, if you want to lay down for your throat to be cut, that is fine by me. I will not be doing the same. If you want something you have to fight for it. Force your enemy to lay down in arms in fear, not because he is tired from the slaughter.
Oh, ok, too old fashioned. Something more modern, then, like a good old roundup of the bad guys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre
Or a social cleansing of those bad people, using radio and media to urge on the killing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide
Words mean things. Please bear that in mind.
Actually, Anonymous, speaking of that religion, it is also quite clear on the penalties for sex outside of marriage. Which would be death. In that case, it is more of execution than murder. It is also clear about the permissibility of war. Extermination of the pickup artists and other degenerates is acceptable.
You may not like it, but do not play the religion card if you are not ready for it.
As far as war, it is coming no matter what I do. Nothing will stop it now. All I can do is get ready for it. The path back to civilization is going to be a long one, and if it happens that I have to wade across a few rivers of blood to get there, so be it. All I have waiting for me is the grave. What fear does death hold for me?
The Shadowed Knight
Actually, Anonymous, speaking of that religion, it is also quite clear on the penalties for sex outside of marriage. Which would be death. In that case, it is more of execution than murder. Extermination of the pickup artists and other degenerates is acceptable.
Like adulterers? Just curious which people will get the axe. It’ll probably be ~90% of the earth’s population. I understand God’s power in doing so; but not yours.
tsk,
Our planet is going to Hell in a handbasket (literally.) Hell is here. This is the Devil’s playground and I am a firm believer that the Anti-Christ is among us (somewhere.) When the cultural elite are more worried about things we (as humans) have no real control (climate change) but no concern what-so-ever of 60,000,000+ unborn dead (of which we have total control) we’re in the end of days.
As far as I’m concerned, the rightous should have no fear of death. So if you’ve lived your life in a Christian manner, when God calls you home (as that is His business, not ours) you have nothing to worry about…
….for you tsk, I think its all going to be okay. 🙂
Off-topic but I couldn’t find a place where it fit. Sorry.
May not be suited for work, but more PG-13 than X. This will probably explode the head off the commenter who hates old men with young women. The title is 40 and 20, heh, heh. In 1992, this song by Jose Jose was on the best seller list in Mexico. And, it was very popular with young women. Older men were certainly not buying it.
While typing this, I remembered my beautiful niece from Mexico City, an internationally known artist Saron. She is around 39 and her Italian husband is well over 60. I can’t remember, but think they have been married over 10 years. I know our commenters of the type who totally believe they know everything that can be known, have insisted that women only marry older men for money, and older men marry younger women only for sex.
But several years ago when Saron flew back from Italy to her sister’s wedding, (performed in the woods near our house) one day we were talking. She told me how much she missed her husband, even for a few days. And, added that when they were apart she felt as if part of her self was gone. It sure sounded to me like they married for love. Of course, we must assume our commenters know better, right?
I remember when Lee of DGM was looking at Mexico as a place to live. I asked another niece, Saron’s sister, about his prospects. She asked nothing except his age and when I told her late 40’s, she said, “He will do fine.” She and her friends were all in their 20’s at the time.
Both Age of Consent laws with high age limits, and attitudes toward May-December marriages, are cultural, not logical, no matter how many AM believe they are
While I am off-topic, here is a link to a Fifties Jukebox in case anyone likes the music of that era. http://www.1959bhsmustangs.com/VideoJukebox.htm#
And, on that jukebox is a video that demonstrates very well the difference between 1960 and today in the USA. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07R_Ne5J4AQ
Annette dancing. She was the heart throb, I think it’s called, of my generation, and a role model for young women who wanted the best of men. Compare her to that slimy (expletive deleted) who twerks and calls it entertainment.
71, I offer up my parody:
“EEEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWW!!!!!”
theshadowedknight
Actually, Anonymous, speaking of that religion, it is also quite clear on the penalties for sex outside of marriage. Which would be death.
Really? Open up your New Testament, and quote from the red letters…
In that case, it is more of execution than murder. It is also clear about the permissibility of war. Extermination of the pickup artists and other degenerates is acceptable.
Your desire for extermination of some of my neighbors by other neighbors is duly noted.
You may not like it, but do not play the religion card if you are not ready for it.
Right back atcha, Torquemada…
As far as war, it is coming no matter what I do. Nothing will stop it now. All I can do is get ready for it. The path back to civilization is going to be a long one, and if it happens that I have to wade across a few rivers of blood to get there, so be it. All I have waiting for me is the grave. What fear does death hold for me?
What religion did you claim to follow, again?
>> 71, I offer up my parody:
“EEEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWW!!!!!”
So, what do you suggest, Marrissa? We send in the Marines, or fire in the nukes? That is reality for a majority of the world’s population.
In other societies, when girls become sexually active, and pregnant, they are vigorously “encouraged” to marry, which is where the phrase “shotgun wedding” comes from. In our highly superior society which apparently fits your preferences, 40% of all babies are born with no legal father, and 80% of certain minorities. The one is a direct result of the other.
And, there are areas of certain cities frequented by the result of this highly superior social policy with extremely high murder rate and everything else bad. Our society is on the ropes, financially and morally, yet few of you seem able to connect between the dots. Even many self-labeled MRA’s can’t handle it.
It isn’t just what happens to individual girls who mess around and get pregnant, with future convicts, and the social costs that result. It is the atttitudes and expectations of other women. When I was in high school, a girl named Marilyn told me one day there was no way she was going to mess around, because her dad would definitely make her get married if she got pregnant. And, she felt she was too young to marry. There is a 50% chance her grand-daughter is an unwed mother. Swell; absolutely swell.
What we have in the USA is called “impunity” in Mexico. Women in the USA know nothing bad will happen to them no matter what they do, (except have sex with an underage boys, and feminists are trying to render that legal as well but only for women) and that includes having a baby out of wedlock for someone else to support. So, they do it. And, it is destroying our society. Correction: it has destroyed our society; it’s over.
Not all women are ready to be married and raise babies at age 15. When there are negative consequences for acting like a married women, girls don’t act so much like married women. I have written that my “grand-daughter” here in Mexico when she was 8 years old, and I went to help her with her English home-work, bathed her younger brothers, washed their clothes by hand, and cooked for her mom. She was capable of caring for a family at age 8.
But, at 16, she is very well behaved and told me the other day she has no desire to get married young. The two go together. Since she knows getting pregnant will mean she gets married, and her education will be over, she keeps her knees together.
Yet. your viewpoint is exactly what one expects from a society on its last legs. That which is destroying that society is viewed as superior to that which helped the society become the most powerful society in the history of the world.
EWWWWWW!
I have written that if my much older daughter had messed up at age 16, and got pregnant, I would much rather she married a man who was 35 or 40, who had a steady job, money in the bank, and could give her a nice house, than to get knocked up by a 15 year old snot-nose who couldn’t chew gum if his mommy didn’t buy it for him. Yet, one of those, the smart choice, gets a man tossed in prison for years and his life destroyed by the sex offender’s registry, and the other one gets her a large government check.
And, people wonder why I wrote some years ago on DGM=2 that AW are collectively insane, and AM aren’t much better off.
No worries, 71, I was parodying the reaction to your first comment. The grossout seems to come from old women and effeminate men.
@Marissa, from my not-very-vast experience the women who claim to be most grossed out by a 40 man with a 20 woman are not-yet-menopausal women who are past the Wall, but we all know (don’t we?) that when the lady doth protest too much, wethinks correctly that she’s into it in reality.
Okay, thanks for clarification. It is true, though, that many men do feel that way, even who call themselves MRA’s. It is very difficult to love with insane people and remain mentally healthy yourself.
We all tend to be products of our own cultures.
That is why historically affluent families did not view their kids as educated until they had lived in a different culture with a totally different language.
Personally, I did not understand fully the US society until I visited Mexico the first time in 1983. After living here for a number of years, I still am learning new things about Mexico AND the USA. (The last one was that in the USA most people, including old men, hate old men.)
My BIL drove us up into the mountains of Vera Cruz in his VW Beetle. We drove by women washing clothes in the river, in their bare feet, pounding the clothes on the rocks, though they do not really pound them. I have washed clothes by hand so I know well how to do it.
They were all laughing and talking, and their kids were happily playing in the water.
I went back to the States and the first day saw a woman driving into the shopping center in a new Cadillac, looking totally pissed off. I understood at that moment that somethine was very wrong in the US society. That was 1983.
One year later, I began a ten year period as a public MRA/FRA activist and counselor of divorced men.
Five years later, I realized i could not live the rest of my life in the USA.. It took a while to make it work but here I am.
Live with insane people, not love with insane people, though that is true, too.
SIW and the orgasm gap.
Terri Conley, Paula England, Debra Herbenik, all of the top researchers in female casual sex behavior, are all telling us that we shouldn’t judge women for preferring lousy inorgasmic sex with clumsy uncaring brutish alphas, because women gain so many more intangibles from the freedom to be with bad boy strangers than being cooped up with a nice guy LTR where the women are forced to endure the dreary life of great orgasmic sex from a loving partner.
Opus returned to the OP with mention of the emo-porn novel “50 shades”, and I mulled over that a bit. Reliable sources inform me that in the 3rd book, Mr. Grey falls in twu wuv with the woman.
So what is the narrative of “50 shades”? It is pure hypergamy.
“Pretty woman is chosen by Big, Important Man (alpha), he tames her with his will to accept any sexual act he demands, she in time Belongs To Him. They then become a duo, and through the magic of her awesome awesomeness plus her magic vajajay, he in turn commits to her Forever”.
I speculate that any woman who lived even a pale shadow of that particular fantasy might not be mentally equipped to understand what life is like for the ordinary man.
Ordinary men, in turn, need to understand that “50 shades” is hugely popular for a reason – it taps right into a major underground river of women’s subconscious desire. It’s not the collared submission that turns her on, it’s the collared submission to Mr Grey, to an attractive Alpha that does the job. And the higher her own opinion of herself, the more alpha it will take on his part.
I see I forgot to post the link.
http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/02/woman-with-an-alternative-theory-of-hookups.html
IMHO, she’s grossed out because she’s locked out. She’s old. So she’s not being chased by as many people.
The 20 year old girl is being chased by old men and young men alike. The old man might possibly chase the old woman but the young man typically will not. She acts like she is grossed. Really, just envy.
Here I am, wondering again. We know that most men fall in love at LOT harder than almost all women ever do, and that men stay in love a LOT longer. It’s not debatable, not even for amusement right now. Assume it’s true. Then, as Wang and Griskevicius say, assume it’s also true that a woman obviously having a man on a leash (I mean in love with her) is a status symbol to other women.
What, then, is the function of the woman having a leash on herself? For example, having to be publically restrained, especially when he demands it? It’s not for the purpose of demonstrating her love; quite the opposite. It demonstrates that even though she just might sleep around, he still loves her enough to want her. This is why her wearing a tiara from him AND her wearing a dogcollar from him to show to other women are both intended to communicate that he loves her and that she has the power in their relationship because he has the desire. And therefore for both it’s intended to make other women stay away from him.
How’s that for shattering the attempts at inversion?
Re: envy. Remember being a young man and how successful all the young men with all the older laydees? Neither do I. And yet a lot, and I mean a LOT, of older women will claim to have some kind of hebephilia, and almost always offer that lame excuse as the reason that they are no longer attracted to their aging husbands. In truth, of course, biologically as well as everything, no 55 yr old woman could ever be more attracted to a 15 yr old boy than a 15 yr old girl would be. And we all know how successful the vast majority of 15 yr old boys aren’t.
jf12,
…hmmmm, no. It has nothing to do with love or uncaring brutish alphas. This is what annoys me so much about people who believe in this horseshit philosophy we call sexuality. There is no such thing as sexuality. There never was sexuality. That term is not mentioned in the Bible and for good reason. God knows that man lies with man (or with beast) because man found a way to get orgasm by doing so (and thus, God forbid it.) God gave us orgasm to make us want to reproduce. Man cannot reproduce with man (or with beast.)
The orgasm is a physical response to genitle stimulation. Full stop. Your genitles are mechanical. Everything below the waist is mechanical. Everything. If 5 men physically hold you down while a 6th man pulls your pants down, grabs your dick, and strokes it (against your will) you will eventually cum. You will hate it (you were raped), but you will cum and it will feel good. That does not may you gay because there is no such thing as sexuality. That is (instead) because your penis is nothing more than a machine. And all that machine needs (to stimulate it) is friction (and lots of it.)
If she is getting great orgasmic sex, it is usually for one of two reasons: #1) the one who is at her vagina has found a way to touch the button (clit) correctly that she will cum, or #2) whoever he is, he has a penis (or dildo/vibrator) large enough and engorged enough with blood that it stimulates all parts of the vagina to orgasm. Her vagina is just a machine. And that penis was able to stimulate it (while so many others, do not.)
IBB, I admire your ability to be wrong. I wish I could be.
jf12,
Yes I do. Every single woman that was single that I wanted to bed (that were more than 7 or 8 years older than I was) I was able to bed. Every. Single. Time.
I didn’t want to very much jf. That is my point. The young guys generally want no part of women that much older (while old men want the very young girls.) This creates a sexual imbalance which is rooted in envy (old women envious of young women.)
jf12,
Oh really?
I’m wrong huh? Please explain to me why at women’s shelters (where battered women stay with their children) the women’s sons are NOT permitted to stay at the shelter with them past age 14? Why is that the rule? What is the reason for that cut off?
There is a very good reason for that and I’m not wrong about it.
IBB
Please explain to me why at women’s shelters (where battered women stay with their children) the women’s sons are NOT permitted to stay at the shelter with them past age 14?
Actually I believe in many cases the age cutoff is 12, but I could be wrong. As for the reason, it’s obvious: post-puberty boys are more like men, and Men Bad.
Careful readers will note that IBB finds the idea of a 20-something woman mating with a man who is more than 2 years her senior to be “perverse”, but is terribly excited about 30+ year old women having sex with teenaged boys.
Gosh, I wonder why that is…
Anonymous, you may want to ask the residents of Jericho about God’s position on genocide. If you do not like the answer, stop by Sodom and Gamorrah, and see what they have to say. The Egyptians might also have something to say about that, too. If that all fails, talk with Noah. He spoke with God, so he might know something about how He feels about extermination. Something about a flood…
The Shadowed Knight
Strong And Independent Women getting injured by the bucketload on the slopes at Sochi:
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/thesochinetwork/horror-slopes-dangerous-injuries-mount-ladies-sochi-113114243.html
So here’s the quandary: women try to compete Just Like Men in freestyle forms such as snowboarding and wind up with various injuries, some pretty serious. But any attempt to take them off the full-bore course would be Teh Sexism, because equality.
Therefore, it must be the fault of someone. Because it can’t be that women have less physical strength than men do, or have thinner bones than men have, [stamp foot] not fair!.
It’s got to be All Men’s Fault somehow, but a whole cat-herd of feministas have not yet figured it out. Give them time…
PUAs got what they need… bend over slut, here comes Christmas!
theshadowedknight
Anonymous, you may want to ask the residents of Jericho about God’s position on genocide. If you do not like the answer, stop by Sodom and Gamorrah, and see what they have to say. The Egyptians might also have something to say about that, too. If that all fails, talk with Noah. He spoke with God, so he might know something about how He feels about extermination. Something about a flood…
When was it, exactly, that you became God? Please provide details. Thanks.
I described it where I said I had become God. It was right… ummm, this is embarrassing, but, um, I cannot find where I claimed that I was God. Funny, that. Almost like you were trying to make an ad homoniem attack while dodging my point. That could not be… could it?
Next time, just lay down and take the beating with some fortitude and courage. You might earn a little more respect than when you skulk around a legitimate point like a coward.
The Shadowed Knight
theshadowedknight
I described it where I said I had become God. It was right… ummm, this is embarrassing, but, um, I cannot find where I claimed that I was God. Funny, that. Almost like you were trying to make an ad homoniem attack while dodging my point. That could not be… could it?
1. You have clearly stated that you want some of my neighbors to kill some of my other neighbors.
2. You have clearly stated that you want to decide who gets killed.
3. You have asserted that this is right, because of Noah, etc. from the old testament of the Bible. So you are conflating your authority with the authority of God.
QED: You have asserted that you have the authority of God, to decide who should die. Now, when did you become God, again?
Also, above I challenged you to defend the exterminationist position towards PUA’s that you and Sunshine have taken with “red letter” words from the New Testament. I’m still waiting for that. When do you plan to provide the quotes from the New Testament to support this “kill them all” position?
Next time, just lay down and take the beating with some fortitude and courage. You might earn a little more respect than when you skulk around a legitimate point like a coward.
You seem to be confused on a number of points. First, words in a combox are not a beating. Second, you have made your point clear: you want some men murdered if they are not part of your religious tribe. Third, your attempt to reframe your lust for blood is not working.
The first rule of holes: you are in one, you should stop digging. There is a difference between defense and offense, and I believe you are intelligent enough to be aware of this. Words mean things, and you now are in the position of defending mass killing along the lines of 20th century massacres, that is a very deep hole and you should really stop now.
The New Testament contains the instructions for dealing within a community. The Old Testament contains those for outsiders. I am using the correct Testament for the task at hand. Thus, I have no interest in trying to twist it to do something for which it is not intended.
I am not claiming the authority to choose who deserves to die. God possesses that authority, not I, and He put down His rules, not I. I am simply noting what those rules are and proposing a course of action that is in accord with those rules. That it sits ill at ease with your conscience is between you and God, and is not my concern.
Yes, I want some men murdered in a war if they are not part of my tribe. Welcome to all of human history. Yes, I am willing to kill people to meet my goals. Again, welcome to humanity. When defense and offense vie against each other, defense loses so yes, I am defending mass killings.
The Shadowed Knight
Who let the kooks out?
(For fun, replace the word “God” above with “communist party” or “people of Germany” or any number of other phrases – choose your favorite and post below).
Anonymous Reader writes:
On the upside, George Soros’ prostitutes just got a good taste of real “gender equality” there in Sochi today.
It’s really not nice to laugh, but no one got hurt too badly and I find these people rather tedious, so that’s that.
I literally cannot imagine anything more “beta” than a supposed “pick up artist” pretending that SSM’s analogy about a future war was really a serious call for genocide and an “exterminationist position towards PUA.”
It’s breathtakingly moronic.
Dal, thought you might enjoy this.
http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.ca/2014/02/the-state-of-american-marital-estate.html
this thread is getting really strange
Dalrock, can you please do a post on this?
http://readunwritten.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/good-things-come-to-those-who-wait-why-you-shouldnt-settle-in-your-20s/
@gmg
>> http://readunwritten.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/good-things-come-to-those-who-wait-why-you-shouldnt-settle-in-your-20s/
Well, calling themselves “girls” says it all…
—
As for relationships: http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2014/02/gss-female-happiness-by-marital-status.html
So finally someone has made a video about the sexual marketplace/economy (female-driven), the law of unintended consequences (from the Pill), differential fecundity, and more:
The Economics of Sex
—
Feminists are apoplectic over this. A good sign that the video is close to the mark.
Obviously I am as stupid as Anonymous Reader; but despite her protestations of allegory I took SSM’s call to arms literally and found her back-tracking entirely unconvincing – certainly not sufficiently penitent as to remove or re-write the offending article. Civil War is the worst of all wars – ask any older Spaniard – or if you prefer, read Zafon’s novel Shadow of the Wind – and anyway who is to be the determinant of who is and is not a PUA. The danger is of course that PUAs might fight back and target Christians.
Most religionists are benign but when Holy Books are used to call for non-judicial execution of ones chosen enemy (one thinks immediately of novelist Salman Rushdie spending over a decade being hidden by HMG – and then those not so lucky such as Theo Gogh and various Islamic Cartoon victims) then one can see how dangerous such talk is – or perhaps the Ayatollah was only speaking allegorically.
The Democrats:
http://www.jammiewf.com/2014/war-on-women-angry-democrat-lashes-out-calls-woman-who-defeated-him-a-bimbo/
http://www.jammiewf.com/2014/bipartisan-uproar-over-obamacares-insane-menu-rules/
—
CAF (“Catholic Answers Fascination”):
Priest said pornography is ok for married couples
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=861160
Getting back to the original subject of the post:
It’s a case of nothing new under the sun. Generations ago marriage, taking the man’s last name, referring to herself as Mrs. John Smith, and even wedding rings were symbolic of the idea that the wife was not only bound to her husband, but was submissive to her husband. Of course, that’s not true today. Those customs have either faded away or been redefined to indicate equality with her husband.
Now we have a bracelet that can only be removed by the husband, which performs the same function as a woman signing her name Mrs. John Smith did in the past. A new “symbol of submissiveness” to replace the old ones.
50-shades and the endless stories (even in mainstream media) of women complaining their husbands aren’t dominant enough in bed are just symptoms of a deeper problem. The pendulum swung too far in the equity direction.
I predict this bracelet will start a trend. It doesn’t carry the baggage of some of the older symbols (“oh no! it’s the patriarchy”), but it does carry the same meaning. It allows couples to dip their toes into the older, more traditional relationship model without facing the fact that that is what they are doing.
Weak Dependent Man here, has greatly failed in his New Year’s attempt to comment more at Dalrock and less elsewhere.
Re: pornography for couples. Well, obviously no. Unless, maybe, it’s only selfies of themselves. Remember, though, what was once a serious question: if a married man finds himself becoming overcomingly distracted by lustful thoughts during Mass, is he permitted to take his wife surreptitiously on the pew right then and there, or must he take her by the hand and dash off to the bathroom or parking lot to do it there? If I remember it was about 50/50 split among Learned Theologicians.
Bonus points if you can dig up the actual debate.
It’s really not nice to laugh, but no one got hurt too badly and I find these people rather tedious, so that’s that.
The bodyguard who had one of Femen in a headlock was my favorite.
I have a question about a verse someone used to spell out their “mutual submission” model. It’s Ephesians 5:21: “21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.” The guy had said that he and his wife are obedient to each other, which sounded to me like a subversion of the headship model. How can both spouses submit to each other, but wives in the next verse are specifically told to submit to their husbands? I truly don’t understand this. I didn’t find this specific verse on Dalrock posts–he typically starts at 5:22.
@Marissa, my understanding (and I’m somewhere between the wisest man in the world and the most foolish man) is that there is mutual submission in a marriage in the same way that there is mutual giving of bodies. Rather than delve into other verses besides this one, I’ll appeal to common sense. He gives her his body and she gives him her body, and yet they don’t do the same things to each other’s body. She’s not expected to penetrate him, for example. Even though there can be the same *degree* of giving, it’s not the same operationally. With regard to submitting in the Godly pattern of marriage, the operational definitions of husbandly duties include providing and loving, while the wifely duties include helping and respecting. Big difference in operation, even though both stem from the same submitting to the marriage.
Wives have to be told over and over and over again to submit because they keep forgetting, evidently.
@Marissa
The reason I start at 5:22 is this is where the instruction specific to husbands and wives begins. 5:21 is speaking to Christians in general, and it isn’t contradicting all of the other hierarchical instructions. To read 5:21 as teaching husbands to submit to their wives is to deny all of the other NT teaching on headship and submission, and to do this you have to assume that “husbands and wives” is the specific target of the verse even though this isn’t stated. 5:21 is continuing on from 5:15-20.
But you can see why feminists want so much to make 5-21 into instruction specific to husbands and wives, because all of the Scripture that specifically speaks to husbands and wives is so profoundly antifeminist. 1 Pet 3 tells us that God finds submissive wives beautiful. Titus 2 tells us that wives should be obedient to their husbands “that the word of God may not be blasphemed”. And of course Ephesions 5 in the verses specifically to husbands and wives is very clear that the wife is to submit and the husband is to be the head. In short, to get the feminist reading you have to assume that 5:21 is voiding all of the specific instructions to husbands and wives (and all other instruction regarding hierarchy), even though it doesn’t state the word husband or wife and it comes in the context of how Christians in general should conduct themselves.
Re: submitting by leading. Even for red-letterists, Matt 20:25-27 is clear that being a leader is a function of being let to lead by followers and NOT a function of making followers follow.
Hipster Racist
I literally cannot imagine anything more “beta” than a supposed “pick up artist” pretending that SSM’s analogy about a future war was really a serious call for genocide and an “exterminationist position towards PUA.”
Curious, I did not realize your imagination was so small and stunted. Thanks for sharing.
Marissa
I have a question about a verse someone used to spell out their “mutual submission” model. It’s Ephesians 5:21: “21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.” The guy had said that he and his wife are obedient to each other, which sounded to me like a subversion of the headship model. How can both spouses submit to each other, but wives in the next verse are specifically told to submit to their husbands? I
If you think of those parts of the Bible as an a la carte menu, or a cafeteria line, it becomes obvious…
Thanks jf12 and Dalrock, your explanations make a lot of sense and I agree.
Back in my blue pill days when I first purchased the Emerson, Lake & Palmer album called Tarkus. There was a track called “Bitche’s Crystal”. The first thing I thought of was diamonds. I refered to diamonds as that since then.
Clearly the Cossacks aren’t so impressed or intimidated by girl power.
“Wives have to be told over and over and over again to submit because they keep forgetting, evidently.”
Kathy Shaidle at Five Feet of Fury occasionally quips that ‘Jesus commanded us to love the poor ’cause it’s so damned hard to do’. I laughed when I first saw it, but later realized it is consistent with a general pattern in the New Testament: wherever we are explicitly commanded to do a thing, it is something that goes against what we would naturally prefer.
jf12,
I don’t think it is not that they are forgetting. It is instead that submitting to their husband, that is NOT the marriage that they signed up for….
…if that was man’s law (and not just God’s) and she could be punished by man for not obeying that law, she would never marry.
@craig:
God tells us to do the things that we find very hard to do because we have to deny our own selfishness. It’s why when God repeats certain concepts, in multiple locations of the Bible, it’s a very good idea to understand why.
Since Ephesians 5:21 & 22 came up, it’s pretty much the exact same thing. Men don’t have a problem with “respect”, but it’s the “love” (agapeo) that’s hard. Flip side issue for Women. Somehow we forget it’s the Creator of the Universe speaking to us.
@8to12
I have a post I saved from somewhere about that:
@Anonymous Reader
It’s a lot of things. I originally found it when I had a particular question on a topic that is oft-times discussed here. The responses I got baffled me (to say the least). I stuck around anyway, often citing research, stats, and articles to back up my positions, only to have people “refute” my positions by saying they were wrong (“that can’t be true, therefore it isn’t” – later: “I fully refuted your arguments”). There were a few people who did, as you say, “have a clue,” and I did connect with them (which is, incidentally, how I found this blog, and the entire neo-reaction movement – I’m on CAF to do the exact same thing for others). I myself have all but given up on facing the hivemind (in its own environment, at least).
I post the threads for reasons of examples (what goes on in Churchianity, and what not to do), for the good arguments presented (some of the posts are really good), and some (basically) for the fact that they are train wrecks (of logic, etc). At some point those so-bad-they’re-funny posts become tragedy (and it does become the train wreck you can’t look away from).
Given the recent poll by the Vatican (and the posting history of CAF), I think Benedict was right about the Church becoming a lot smaller.
@Looking Glass, yes. But while a woman showing respect to a man will (generally, unless he’s a jerk. In fact this could be the definition of a jerk) make it easier for him to love her more, in contrast the more a man shows love to a woman the less she will respect him. It’s sad, but true.
@MarcusD … I am Catholic and I agree about CAF. I post there once in awhile (with a different name) and when I have the opportunity to say red pill words, I usually do so in a gentle tone. Still get shot at though. Traditional Catholic belief is firmly about husband headship, that never changed the way some non-Catholic denominations have, but the message gets lost in the culture. Which I’m sad to say has infected a lot of so-called Catholic women and their white knights. CAF is a very good place to view that infection. There exist posters there who are pro-divorce, pro-abortion, pro-women’s ordination, pro-gay marriage and yet insist on calling themselves Catholic…. Sorry no, the way is narrow, Jesus said that, but Satan gives us a million ways to take the easy route.
So when Benedict wrote about the smaller Church, I was only surprised that it came from him, not some intellectual apologist, definitely not surprised at the message.
Back to the OT, in a humorous way…
Gold medal in the funny woman driving fail Olympics:
I’m surprised nobody has thrown this up yet:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/82641/hilarious-video-proves-exactly-why-you-shouldn-t-spend-all-your-money-on-an-engagement-ring
Diamond encrusted manacles?
Pingback: Pride of ownership. | Dalrock