A long time reader asked me to do a post on a recent article by Damon Linker titled Men are the worst. Here’s how they can be better. My initial answer was to decline, because Linker just isn’t worthy of rebuttal. The whole screed has a begging and pleading quality to it which left me feeling more sorry for Linker than anything else.
What is interesting though is how frequently throughout the piece Linker’s words sound like something I would expect from Pastor Driscoll. Driscoll is the master of the man up rant, so why is Linker’s piece so ineffective? After giving it some consideration I believe I’ve identified the problems.
The first problem is fairly subtle. Pastor Driscoll’s fundamental message is that weak men are screwing feminism up. While this is absurd it works for Driscoll because he is in denial that feminism ever happened. Because Driscoll is able to sell this denial, the absurdity of the message isn’t readily visible.
But Linker wears his feminism on his sleeve, so what would be very effective lines in the hands of Driscoll (or FoTF, or FamilyLife, etc) come out very differently. When Linker writes:
It is long past time for men to own their emotional lives and stop shirking responsibility for the brutish, disrespectful, and sometimes ruinous actions they undertake while under the sway of their unruly passions and drives.
It comes after he has already written:
Throughout our violent, sexist history, the world has had a very big man problem.
This brings us to Linker’s other and more serious problem. His piece isn’t framed as a call for men to regain their lost masculinity, but as a personal plea so that Linker can have the feminism he so desperately craves. He closes the article with a stomp of his delicate foot:
The woman you long to sleep with, like the world itself, owes you absolutely nothing. Let that be seared into the brain of every leering, groping, cat-calling, date-raping, would-be mass-murdering man in America.
That, and nothing less, is what it would take to solve my man problem — and ours.
Won’t some big strong man come rescue Linker from this torment?
What Linker doesn’t understand is the man up rant must be framed as a call to noble manhood by a heroic leader. Follow me and I’ll make men of you! While Linker gets some of the words right, he makes his plea from the position of a pouty faced damsel in distress begging to be rescued by the very men he is trying to exhort to man up. This will never work.
Pingback: The saddest man up rant ever. | Manosphere.com
Ugh. It just screams with the subtext: “Surely this courageous attack on men will get some strong woman to admire me enough to have sex with me.”
If anyone’s a “would-be mass-murderer,” it’s a guy who thinks like this.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this guy would be a “Gamma” on Vox’s scale, yes?
“every leering, groping, cat-calling, date-raping, would-be mass-murdering man in America”
I’m personally feeling the microfury of his microaggression in so smearing me.
And now I have to go to choir practice, since we’re having a special midweek service tomorrow, but I didn’t shave so the woversynz will be subjected to the milliaggressions of my millimeter long whiskers.
@TFH “But one can only double down so many times.”
Technology enables the march towards nanogroveling to proceed apace with Moore’s Law.
@Cail – Was thinking that very thing today. I am certain it wasn’t too long ago that another famous guntotinknifewielding misogynist was pedestalizing.
TFH, I wouldn’t have gone there either, but in the words of 7-year-olds everywhere: he started it. If he’s going to accuse pretty much every man who’s not as delicately feminist as himself as a “leering, groping, cat-calling, date-raping, would-be mass-murdering man,” then I’m going to accuse him of projection and suggest that he should be kept away from sharp objects.
I get the impression that Linker himself is longing for some “unruly passions” at the hands of a dominant homosexual. The phrase “my man problem” is a bit queer, to say the least.
“The woman you long to sleep with, like the world itself, owes you absolutely nothing”. And then you owe her the same nothing, not even respect.
Man-up from someone who cannot tell the direction of gravity?
Linkee should call the hemlock society to end his pain.
“I’ll be blunt: Either men are capable of mastering their emotions and impulses, of displaying self-control and self-restraint, or the entire civilizational edifice of morality is a crock.”
If women were capable, we wouldn’t have a million abortions every year.
My balls shrank just reading that article.
I’m going to go slam three fingers of scotch and walk down the street inappropriately cat-calling all the cuties I see to restore the balance.
Excuse me.
Damon Linker mewled:
“The woman you long to sleep with, like the world itself, owes you absolutely nothing.”
A woman married to a man does most certainly owe that man something.
I say again:
Women, you’re not entitled to commitment from a man. You’re not entitled to a man’s money, time, attention, resources, or sexual fidelity.
You’re not entitled to the protection or intervention of a man when you’re in public peril.
You’re not entitled to the help of a man when you have a flat tire or car trouble.
You’re not entitled to the help of a male coworker if you need a high item reached or a heavy item moved.
You’re not entitled to a man giving up his seat to you on public transportation.
You’re not entitled to a gaggle of beta orbiters to help you move from one apartment to another.
You’re not entitled to an emotional tampon on which to spill your feelings when Harley McBadboy breaks up with you or cheats on you with Samantha Slut.
Good call. When I read that, I was thinking, “Your man problem? How is this your problem?” I suppose what he means, though he wouldn’t admit it, is that the men he hates “steal” all the women, leaving him lonely and frustrated. But yes, most men would find a way to label it other than “my man problem,” which sounds like it involves bathhouses.
Thing is, the natural reaction would be to be angry at women for rejecting him in favor of those men. It’s the women who won’t touch him, after all, and men aren’t preventing them. But he can’t do that, so he has to blame men for somehow manipulating or brainwashing women into being blind to his wonderfulness. That level of cognitive dissonance makes him seem like more of a candidate for snapping and turning violently in the other direction than the guy who just honestly doesn’t like women much because they don’t like him. At least the latter guy has some grounding in reality.
So then; I owe 300 pound Bertha Absolutley Nothing, and Baby Mama Mary, Wall hitting Heather, and Frivorcing Fran, Melisa manipulator, Susy Slut Tattoo Tammy ect.
Women keep offering less and less while demanding more and more.
“But one can only double down so many times.”
You don’t know how math works. You can ALWAYS divide a non-zero number.
Apparently this guy has fallen for an idea that most men (until recently) would have found absurd: the idea that the only qualification required to command the attention (to say nothing of respect or obedience) of other men is to be a man oneself.
I see this attitude in the scribblings of male feminists all the time – “As a man myself, let me say that men need to start…”
It’s like they do not understand that, among men, respect and obedience are not things to be demanded: they have to be earned. A maxim in military affairs is that only the enemy can crown you the victor – as long as the other guy is still fighting you haven’t won. AMOG’ing without the juice to back it up is like declaring victory when the enemy is still in the field. Damon Linker is asserting the right to be heard and obeyed by men without establishing his right to do so – which can only be given by other men. Instead, he demands that men listen to him and change according to his dictates without establishing himself as someone to whom other men owe their respect, their obedience, or even their attention. All I see is a flabby court eunuch (h/t TFH) who wants to tell men how we should act – based on transparently false reasoning, to boot.
On the off chance that Damon Linker is reading: Sorry, bro, but when some whack-job who’s off his meds kills six people – four of whom were men – it’ not any part of some “war on women.” So… until you give me a reason to value your opinion – either by manly actions or convincing arguments – you’re just another blue-pill, clueless, pedestalizing, white knight with a keyboard who’s trying to curry favor with people you accept as your betters (feminist women) by feebly clawing at your actual betters (non-feminist men). I know why you’re doing this, Damon, but… That. Won’t. Get. You. Laid.
Cail writes:
“I suppose what he means, though he wouldn’t admit it, is that the men he hates “steal” all the women, leaving him lonely and frustrated. But yes, most men would find a way to label it other than “my man problem,” which sounds like it involves bathhouses.”
That’s a very plausible supposition. And to reference Dalrock’s point about the ineffectiveness of the rant, Linker has never learned a basic lesson of masculinity: First build respect, then make demands. Driscoll understands the proper order. Linker has it reversed. He assumes that uttering commanding words magically inspires respect.
Cracked.com expert (aka a freelance comedy writer): 5 Uncomfortable Truths Behind the Men’s Rights Movement
@Houston
I think he is alluding to a famous essay titled “My Negro Problem-and Ours”. But it still comes off as gay, something he should have recognized.
“I think he is alluding to a famous essay titled “My Negro Problem-and Ours”. But it still comes off as gay, something he should have recognized.”
Not to mention self-defeatingly arcane.
Dalrock,
He is just blaming the entire male gender for the antics of Elliot Rodger. That is all that is. He is basically saying to all the ugly, unloved, unrespected beta male virgins that they are not entitled to anything and their lack of happiness is not justification for murder.
The genders :1) Women2a) Red pill men2b) Blue pill men
Blue pill men?
Nope. Blue pill manginas, maybe, but the word “men” doesn’t apply (Linker is all the proof of this that we need) and shouldn’t be so grosssly abused. I was going to offer “blue pill castrati,” but I need to be more merciful and forgiving. These guys should always be given the chance to reclaim their balls and find their way over to the good side of The Force via the red pill.
TFH,
You, Dalrock, Houston, and I are hitting the same note – respect matters among men, and some guys don’t understand that. For guys like Futrelle and Linker, they feel that all that is necessary is for them to speak.
This is what it looks like when guys fall for the Apex fallacy. Just like the feminists who fall for it – they see that the “top” men got (fill in the blank), and since most men are invisible to them, they imagined that all men get the same (fill in the blank)…. and they’re mad as hell that they don’t get the same kind kind of (fill in the blank) themselves. The males who fall for that nonsense actually believe that male privilege is a thing, and that, as males, they have merely to wave the banner of manhood to be listened to.
The real world doesn’t work like that – in the real world men generally have to earn whatever (fill in the blank) that we get. Guys like these – Damon Linker, Dave Futrelle, Elliot Rodgers – have absorbed the lie that there is some strange species called men, whose members wield power by birthright, and that they, as presumptive men themselves, therefore have the right to such power.
They can make all the demands they like, but I acknowledge no requirement to conform my actions to their liking. Indeed, all I really care to do is to mock them.
“Women are the worst. Here’s how they can be better ”
By Sunshine Mary
I’m a woman with a woman problem.
Allow me to explain.
As I wrote in about a million blog posts, I feel shame and disgust every time I hear about divorce statistics and then learn, invariably, that the majority were filed by a woman, or read another “Where have all the good men gone” whine-fest by some hitting-the-wall post-alpha fux and faaaabulous-career-having 39-and-eleven-twelfths-year old woman, or read another sex-pozzy feminist essay extolling the virtues of sluttery and minimizing the impact of incurable gonorrhea.
But I’m afraid something has been missing from the conversation. Yes, feminism is very close to the cause of the problem. But perhaps even more primary is the refusal of so many women to acknowledge their own emotional lives — their rebellious and bratty impulses, their unjustified sense of entitlement, their hormone-addled youthful lust and 30-something baby rabies— and assert control over themselves.
The female refusal of self-awareness and self-mastery is especially galling given the arrogant trope one still hears so often among women when they get together to bellyache about the men in their lives (or the men they wish were in their lives). “He’s just so boring. He never wants to (listen to me) talk (endlessly)” must be the most common shorthand statement of disrespect in the world.
Implication: If only men could be more like women — gossipy, dramatic, emotional, irrational — then maybe we could join them in becoming philosophers and managers and poets and priests and executives and artists and statesman. But alas…
But nothing.
The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of divorces, regret-sex-false-rape-accusations, and abortions in human history have been initiated by women — quite often by women in a hissy fit.
Remember that the next time you hear a woman suggest that a man’s display of any beta characteristics (or, God forbid, his expressions of any preference for a woman who is not an aging, fat, tattooed, STD-riddled, unsubmissive, sour, careerist) disqualifies him from respect or deference, or precludes him from taking on a position of authority.
This is what psychologists call projection: The attribution of qualities to someone else that one wishes to deny in oneself. Women find it extremely difficult to control their emotional and sexual impulses, but they’re embarrassed to admit their weakness. So they blame it on men, who are forever being accused of provoking, seducing, enticing women into bad behavior.
Civilization is positively overflowing with examples.
Think of Adam, blamed for not preventing poor, unsuspecting Eve transgressing the Lord’s will and launching humanity onto the path of sin.
Think of countless religiously based rules and restrictions on how men must restrict who they can have sex with and their obligations to provide for and protect – even unto death – their family— rules and restrictions that exist to keep them from leaving women to live in mud huts without indoor plumbing or iPhones.
Think of how the remnants of these strictures in our time lead some women to persist in claiming to be victims of abuse over every little thing just because their husbands insisted on reasonable behavior or didn’t kiss their asses.
Girls are sugar and spice and everything nice, don’t you know.
Actually, I don’t know that at all — and neither do you.
I’ll be blunt: Either women are capable of mastering their emotions and impulses, of displaying self-control and self-restraint, or the entire civilizational edifice of morality is a crock.
Morality stands or falls with the human capacity to override emotions and impulses — to do what’s right even when doing what’s wrong would be simpler, more satisfying, or more pleasurable.
Is moral self-mastery difficult? Of course it is. That’s precisely what makes it admirable. Giving in to our wanton desire to take what we want — or lashing out in fury at a person’s, or a gender’s, or the world’s refusal to give us what we want — is always easier than putting ourselves in another’s place, recognizing his or her intrinsic dignity, and restraining our urge to treat that person as a means to our own pleasure, satisfaction, and post-divorce child-support cash-n-prizes.
But what is difficult is not impossible.
It is long past time for women to own their emotional lives and stop shirking responsibility for the entitled, disrespectful, and sometimes ruinous actions they undertake while under the sway of their unruly passions, drives, and media-induced Eat-Pray-Love-divorce-porn fantasies.
The men you sleep with, like the world itself, owes you absolutely nothing. Let that be seared into the brain of every carousel-riding, nice-guy-nuclear-rejecting, frivorcing, date-rape-accusing, mass-unborn-baby-murdering woman in America.
That, and nothing less, is what it would take to solve my woman problem — and ours.
The end.
(Sometimes just doing a gender-flip on these kinds of silly essays exposes their idiocy.)
Damon Linker needs to “man up” himself. He needs to grow a pair and see if they can produce some testosterone. Nobody spouting that much limp, pathetic mewling ought to be taken even the least bit seriously. What a waste of carbon.
TFH-
I re-read your misandry bubble post again, but I am not getting how you are arriving at the fixed timeline of around 2020? What am I missing?
And is this doubling-down essentially a sociosexual Martingale strategy?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this guy would be a “Gamma” on Vox’s scale, yes?
I’d say yes. Most hard-core manginas are Gamma. Gammanginas, if you will. A Beta who’s still Blue-Pill believes the blue-pill world-view is true. A Gamma wants it to be true.
I often think that the androsphere should word *with* women to pile all costs onto manginas and whiteknights. That is the natural order, and perhaps the best thing for society.
I have to disagree. It’s unatural for women to to have such wide spread autonomy, and it’s even worse that they have it with out any accountability or responsibility. They need to pay their own way or else quit pretending they can have it all.
@ SSM
Brilliant.
> The woman you long to sleep with, like the world itself, owes you absolutely nothing. (Damon Linker/OP)
If Feminism will NEVER help you get laid! is the best motto they can come up with for men in the category of “winning their hearts and minds”, I think we can declare them all officially braindead.
Don’t they realize they’re slitting their own throats by declaring anything in the way of a social contract that men can rely on null and void — aka “entitlement”, after men have done their best to hold up their part of it?
I suppose not.
He is just blaming the entire male gender for the antics of Elliot Rodger. That is all that is.
Before we get to steeped in perpetuating re-defined terms in ways that promote the FI, here is a quick reminder:
“Sex” refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women.
“Gender” refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.
Remember they tried to change the meaning of gender so they could promote the false hood that our sex (male, female) was a social construct (gender).
I guess in Linker’s world, all women are perfect angels, and girls are made of sugar and spice and everything nice!
http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/waukesha-police-2-12-year-old-girls-plotted-for-months-to-kill-friend-b99282655z1-261534171.html
It appears that The Week does not “do” comments. Gee, I wonder why…
Won’t some big strong man come rescue Linker from this torment?
Perhaps by dishing up some fried ice?
Of course we are all wasting our time attempting to fisk this pedestalizing halfwit. There is a better way:
Not All Men Are Like That so run along and play with your dolly, there’s a good boy.
Q.E.D.
That was really good Sunshine you need to send that to huffington post online.
SSM that was perfect.
Some excellent thoughts here.
Well, you know, in order to be attractive to women in the conventional sense, you have to accomplish something interesting or great, or at least be someone with the potential to do so.
Thank god for feminism, which has given these castrati the ability to squeal for attention without having to ever do the heavy lifting that female attention traditionally required.
Regards, Boxer
Dear Houston:
I read the article carefully, and in its entirety. I get the impression that the author is not seeking respect so much as catharsis. He probably feels “manly” after he gets done AMOGing other men by proxy, behind the safety of a web page. He isn’t trying to gain the respect of other men, so much as alleviating the insecurities that result from not having accomplished much himself. Writing this article gives him the delusion of having a sort of ethical high-ground, from where he can condemn better men.
Best, Boxer
@Dalrock
Great Post!……..You are on fire again!
“”he makes his plea from the position of a pouty faced damsel in distress””
Yes he does.This guy is a pathetic mangina pansy who could not find his balls if someone pointed them out to him.
@Deti
I say again:
“”Women, you’re not entitled to commitment from a man. You’re not entitled to a man’s money, time, attention, resources, or sexual fidelity.””
Spot on! Keep repeating this again & again on this blog.Maybe some of the female lurkers will finally understand this….but,I doubt it!
@SSM
“”(Sometimes just doing a gender-flip on these kinds of silly essays exposes their idiocy.)””
Yes!….brilliant post….^5’s!!!
@Cail Corishev
I suppose what he means, though he wouldn’t admit it, is that the men he hates “steal” all the women, leaving him lonely and frustrated.
Linker sound a lot like Rodger, in that case.
I note with amusement that a great many such articles have “comments not being accepted for this piece” disclaimers at the bottom. It warms my heart.
I note with amusement that a great many such articles have “comments not being accepted for this piece” disclaimers at the bottom. It warms my heart.
I’ve also noticed that trend, and it fits with what TFH has been saying for years: the facade is noticeably cracking. Whenever writers play the “Man Always Bad – Woman Always Good” card now, the comments sections are positively flooded with red pills… unless the comments are disabled or the mods screen them out. This phenomenon is not limited to the androsphere, but appears everywhere it is not specifically and deliberately disallowed – even on blue-pill and libtard websites.
I don’t think that we are seeing the ascension of those who want Biblical marriage to be the norm, but it does appear that feminists have lost their monopoly over the terms of discourse.
Pingback: “Women are the worst. Here’s how they can be better ” By Sunshine Mary | Defunct Creakings of a Cog
Actually, Mr. Your-Princess-Is-in-Another-Castle here is about an order of magnitude further in the same direction as D.L.
My $$’s on Chu for the win fershure. D.L. will maybe only just place or show. Any others in the running?
(hope I got the link right)
So now feminism has stopped offering the free sex utopia that the sexual revolution/womans liberation promised. Remember when we were all promised a playboy bunny or Swedish model if we would go along with the program?
While the article is biased and has some factual errors, it’s worth linking anyway:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/03/bodies-of-800-babies-long-dead-found-in-septic-tank-at-former-irish-home-for-unwed-mothers/
(The comments are a train wreck, as to be expected)
—
Also: http://no-pasaran.blogspot.ca/2014/04/the-horrific-state-of-our-family-courts.html
Right on schedule:
my girlfriend lied about virginity
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=887080
—
Pretty much all of the comments have an undertone of restrained contempt (starting with #3).
The [man whose money, status, and power] you long [for], like the world itself, owes you absolutely nothing. Let that be seared into the brain of every [skank, slut, gold-digger, and feminist] in America.
Fxed it.
I’ve often thought to myself that the only thing more powerful than a woman’s Rationalization Hamster’ is a Magina’s. So, not only do we have three genders, but each has their own breed of hamster: a man’s hamster is weak, a woman’s is strong, a mangina’s is super-plus-extra-industrial strength.
‘Manginas really have become a third gender. Their psychology differs from normal men by such a degree that they can no longer be considered similar.’
” . . . my man problem — ”
is that I am ignorant of them.
@Kowalski
Yeah, when I read rants like that dude’s or see guys posting up pictures holding “This is why I need feminism!” signs, the first microsecond I think, “Haha, that guys having a laugh!” Then I’m like “Oh, he’s serious.” As I realize that yep, there are little bitch-boys like this running around, and nope, I have absolutely nothing in common with them and I imagine that in times past (pre-Interweb) they would have spent their days scribbling bad poetry about a girl they met in third grade into sticker covered notebooks.
Their impotent rage at being socially and functionally defective is fully on display. They are Elliot Rodgers waiting to happen. The world’s greatest super gentlemen! Ta-da!
I’m one of those who routinely points out that the words sex and gender are not synonyms – there are two sexes and four genders (since gender applies to words, not people, and the English language has four of them).
The two sexes of humanity: male and female.
The four genders in the English language: masculine, feminine, neuter, and indeterminate.
It is generally both useful and proper to say sex rather than gender when referring to people, since substituting the linguistic word gender is an attempt to undermine the biological fact of human sexual dimorphism – and then denigrate “male-ness” as part of culture rather than celebrating it as part of Creation. Sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking, and we shouldn’t indulge feminists by allowing them to define the terms of the debate by corrupting the language. A certain Englishman who wrote under the name “George Orwell” understood a thing or two about that, as I recall.
But in this case I’m inclined to make an exception, since people like Linker, Futrelle, Driscoll, Osteen, etc, are biologically male, but not correspondingly masculine. In fact, such guys don’t really fit into any of the four existing genders. I think we actually need two more genders, for a total of six – one for biological males like these (biological males who do not have masculine minds), and another for their female counterparts (biological women who do not have feminine minds). Can we declare that mangina and feminist are the fifth and sixth genders, respectively?
Interesting:
He said he was leaving. She ignored him.
When Laura Munson’s husband asked for a divorce, she ducked instead of fighting. He needed to learn, she says, that his unhappiness wasn’t really about her
http://theweek.com/article/index/99512/he-said-he-was-leaving-she-ignored-him
@Lyn87
” I think we actually need two more genders, for a total of six – one for biological males like these (biological males who do not have masculine minds), and another for their female counterparts (biological women who do not have feminine minds).”
I think the word for that is Tranny.
PuzzledTraveller,
I think you’re on to something – manginas and feminists are just different types of trans-sexuals… Why didn’t I see that all along? Brilliant!
@MarcusD
My friend just sent me the article in the 800 babies, claiming that what our society needs is not more shaming, because look what shaming did without the corresponding Grace!!
What were the factual errors you saw in the article and how would you approach this from someone using it as an argument for shaming = bad without some predetermined correct amount of Grace??
Lyn87 asked Can we declare that mangina and feminist are the fifth and sixth genders, respectively?
Not to split hairs or veer too far OT, but it has dawned on me that the term “feminist” is philologically too similar to the word “feminine,” a trait that has nothing whatsoever to do with former. While “mangina” is a nearly perfect term for describing the feminized, testosterone-free little boys in adult bodies that characterize Linker and his ilk, there does not appear to be in common use an equivalent term for the opposite sex. Would not a term like “wopenis” (a bit unwieldy, I realize) perhaps be more appropriate of a description of these self-loathing individuals?
Marcus,
That story from Catholic Forums by the guy whose girlfriend lied about being a virgin was hard to read, although I was pleased to see several commentators that told it straight. My favorites:
Pure gold, as this guy seems to understand that she probably still hasn’t told the whole truth. She knows that if they marry her hymen won’t be intact, and she’s telling him that she allowed her ex-boyfriend to penetrate her, but not ejaculate. That’s VERY convenient for her, since I believe that many Catholics do not consider the sex act to be completed until that happens, and it neatly explains the physical evidence of her actions in the “least bad” way possible. For all we know, she could have gang-banged the rugby team twenty times – since her story keeps changing it seems prudent to assume there’s more to it than she’s said so far.
Another good one. This writer takes her confession at face value and still recommends caution. In a similar vein…
Then there’s this one. The writer seems to be channeling Dalrock in the first two paragraphs and Heartiste in the last one.
I had a Freudian ‘slip of the mind; when I first read this line, My mind registered the following:
Can we declare that mangina and feminist are the fifth and sixth graders, respectively
There’s something to this; Feminists rail against teh Patriarchy while grade-school girls avoid boys for fear of ‘cooties’. On the other hand Mangina’s pedestalize women like 5th grade boys who’ve just ‘discovered’ that girls are pretty. Perhaps these people are just extraordinally stunted in their mental/emotional development.
‘Can we declare that mangina and feminist are the fifth and sixth genders, respectively?’
@Martian Bachelor, I agree. Chu’s article was earlier and rantier and more focused on the specific problem of the existence of the underdesired male. But “Nerds are the worst” comes across as the “correct” knee-jerk feminists response with all its overtones of NiceGuy™, while “Men are the worst” overcorrects into #Yesallmen territory, probably thereby invading women’s spaces and causing nanoaggressive CreepyKnight feelings.
@Lyn87, re: “she allowed her ex-boyfriend to penetrate her, but not ejaculate. That’s VERY convenient for her”
How likely is it that she did not also allow ejaculations outside penetration?
I thought the same thing. Her story is WAY TOO convenient, and the fact that it keeps changing is highly suspect. A famous quote come to mind – equally slippery and similarly unlikely:
“When I was in England I experimented with marijuana a time or two, and I didn’t like it, and didn’t inhale, and never tried it again.” – Bill Clinton (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bktd_Pi4YJw)
Essentially she’s telling this guy, “When we weren’t seriously dating I let my ex-boyfriend penetration me once, and I didn’t like it, and he didn’t ejaculate, and I never tried it again.”
Suuuuuuuure. And if you uncritically accept that I have a healthcare plan I’d like you to sign up for.
I’ve related this story before, but I’ll repeat the salient details again: I was dating a woman and it was starting to get serious. So one day I just asked her flat-out if she was still a virgin. She didn’t attempt to hide it – she admitted that she was not, and it was clear that she was deeply ashamed of it. No equivocation, no “only once” or “he didn’t ejaculate” or any of that equivocation girls know they can usually get away with. I was pretty miffed, since the possibility of marriage existed and I had been celibate myself. Then the “still, small voice” smacked me upside the head like a baseball bat, “I’ve forgiven her. Why can’t you?” Unlike the guy in the Catholic Forums, my girlfriend didn’t change her story or hide anything – she was wrong, she knew it, and she had genuinely repented. If grace can’t cover that, then the word grace has no meaning. I didn’t marry her, by the way, but not for that reason. I think God was teaching me – and probably her, too – a lesson about redemption. I met my wife a few weeks later and we were engaged two months after that… she is superior to the other girl in every way – including that one.
Lyn87 says:
June 4, 2014 at 9:00 am
Thank you for so eloquently saying what I tried to say yesterday. Later I re-read my post and realized it didn’t make much sense.
Well, forgiveness doesn’t fix temporal consequences (which is to say, grace does not cover that). Beyond that, forgiveness doesn’t entail or require commitment.
While men (and rarely, women) are accused of pride in their insistence on marrying a virgin, it’s usually for other reasons (e.g. divorce risk, STDs, etc).
As others have noted (so I just felt like piling on, because that’s what boys do), Linker suffers from a “man problem”: other men are just too much man for him. He suffers from projection, which he defines as “The attribution of qualities to someone else that one wishes to deny in oneself.” but in contrast to his claim that other men project manly qualities onto women, Linker projects his feminine desires onto women.
@ Lyn87 and others
Once again, I need to point out that rejecting as marriage material a woman who is not a virgin is not a “forgiveness issue.” A woman who has fornicated with other men has not wronged you (unless you are already engaged when she commits the sin)- she wronged herself, the men she slept with, and the Lord. The whole idea that you need to “forgive” such a woman is buying into her frame. It puts you on the defensive, makes you to be the bad Christian, when the situation is in fact the complete opposite. Especially if the man in question is a virgin himself.
Don’t fall for that trick folks. Just don’t. God may have forgiven her, but that doesn’t change the worldly consequences of what she has done. A wiping clean of the spiritual slate doesn’t translate to the worldly one being restored.
@Marcus D
Being intrigued I have read that sad young man’s story – difficult in places to know exactly what he is saying, but – it is clear that his girlfriend is not in any meaningful sense a virgin, that she has indulged in all sorts of things which we all consider sex and that this continued (and perhaps still continues) even though she was supposed to have broken up with the guy. The girl is in a Jenny Ericson way not attracted to the poster and frankly the sooner he cuts his great losses the better – for both his and her sake, and not because she is not a virgin but because she he is not a man she really wants.
The story resonates with me because when I was probably just out of shcool I started dating a girl who was pretty easy (that was why I stayed around) and who was keen to tell me that she a was virgin and that I was the first. She wanted to hear that from me too, so naturally ‘Reader, I lied’ ™. I had no idea what a hymen was a hymen but she was keen to explain her absence thereof and said she lost it riding horses. Now this had to be a lie; I never saw her anywhere near a horse or any photo of her with one. One day I received a phone call from a friend of hers (she was a school-girl at the time) and there was some drunken party going on and apparently she was in floods of tears. Naturally, like an idiot I jumped into my car. To cut a short story shorter she confessed that she had slept with a guy when she was thirteen and he twelve and their relationship had only ended when their respective parents (her Father was a lawyer) discovered that the homework they were doing together was a cover for regular sex. I am happy to say she married her next boyfriend and is now a grandmother.
For reasons best known to themselves women are always keen to assert a low N. It has never bothered me.
MarcusD
If the guy wasn’t shooting loads on the lying slut he would have anything to do with her period. Another case for the Christian man with game. Lyn87 is about what a Christian man with game would sound(read?) like.
“Men are not OWED sex for anything”
This is the first binary retort I expect from feminists unwilling to dig any deeper in to the transactional nature of human sexuality. God bless Roosh, but he didn’t do the manosphere any favors by simply stating that incidents like Eliot Rodger’s would occur if men had more socially acceptable alternatives for sexual release or female intimacy, and then just leave the interpretation up to a media founded on feminism and feminine-primacy.
I get what his intent was, and probably most of the manosphere did too, but it was just too oversimplified not to be snapped up in the most binary (black or white) terms by feminist, like Linker, and the MSM as an easy mark to line up against. So of course “men” and fem-centrists throw out stupid bromides like “what, do we need ‘sex vending machines’ to keep men’s urges in tact so they wont shoot the pretty blondes they wanna fuck?”
The premise that a man would ever be ‘owed’ sex for anything is offensive to the feminine imperative because it offends women’s self-entitlement to being filters of their own hypergamy, plain and simple. Women’s hypergamy dictates whom they will and will not fuck according to their sexual strategy’s most urgent needs.
To presume a man is ‘owed’ sex for services rendered, or due to his own self-perceived prequalifications for a woman’s intimacy, is to remove women’s control of the decision making / filtering process of their hypergamy.
The offensiveness doesn’t come from the notion that men would need to perform in order to get sex, but rather that a man might forcibly assume control of a woman’s hypergamous determining of his sexual suitability for her.
@Rollo, “The offensiveness doesn’t come from the notion that men would need to perform in order to get sex”
Supposedly, according to what women say, that IS what they find offensive. Women are deeply offended (shocked, shocked I tell you) to hear that they could be manipulated e.g. through Game.
The obvious follow-through to “Men are not owed sex for anything.” is too delicious to remain unborn: “Women are not owed anything for sex.”
Kowalski said:
June 4, 2014 at 9:48 am
I had a Freudian ‘slip of the mind; when I first read this line, My mind registered the following:
Can we declare that mangina and feminist are the fifth and sixth graders, respectively
There’s something to this; Feminists rail against teh Patriarchy while grade-school girls avoid boys for fear of ‘cooties’. On the other hand Mangina’s pedestalize women like 5th grade boys who’ve just ‘discovered’ that girls are pretty. Perhaps these people are just extraordinally stunted in their mental/emotional development.
‘Can we declare that mangina and feminist are the fifth and sixth genders, respectively?’
Mustard says:
Kowalski, I think that this is a very important insight. I think it has explanatory value, and even suggests a “way through” — possibly addressing some problems. Genders Five and Six, Feminist and Mangina, have, in an important way, never grown up.
This is why they act like children, moreso than most, living in a fantasy world that they should have outgrown, but didn’t.
Thanks for this, to me, fresh perspective.
comments are still allowed on that article, they use the “disqus” system.
“If anyone’s a “would-be mass-murderer,” it’s a guy who thinks like this.”
How so?
“God bless Roosh, but he didn’t do the manosphere any favors by simply stating that incidents like Eliot Rodger’s would occur if men had more socially acceptable alternatives for sexual release”
Rodger was living in the Land of Alternative Sexual Release – Californication. He did what he did because he’s crazy and has had mental health issues from childhood, if not earlier.
@Rollo
I’m not clear on what you mean here, and fear that others will take this as a justification of rape. What do you mean by “forcibly”? Are you talking about Game?
@jf12
Well put.
Donal you make a great point. I to find it interesting how even Christians (who should know better) consider a fornicating ‘girlfriend’ or ‘boyfriend’ to be cheating, as if they were betrothed or even married.
@Purple Pill
From what I have read it really is as simple as that.
donalgraeme,
I mostly agree with you in principle: forgiveness for fornication does not translate into the elimination of the temporal consequences. I also agree – to a degree – that her sin was against herself and God. I disagree with you that there was no need for me to forgive her, though. She put herself into the dating market as a Christian – we met through a Christian dating service, in fact. Since it is to be expected that never-married Christians are virgins, and she was not, in a sense she was dating me under false pretenses – an offense against me.
It is also true that she did not attempt to hide the fact – she simply did not offer the information until I asked her as the relationship grew more serious. If the questionnaire she filled out to join the dating service had asked the question: “Are you a virgin?” her non-disclosure would have been a different matter. But that was not the case. She made no attempt to hide it when I asked her directly, and she understand that all she could bring to her marriage bed was damaged goods. She had given away something that, if we had married, was not hers to give but rather mine to take (as my virginity would have been hers to take). She was profoundly ashamed of herself – even after receiving forgiveness – and condemnation is not of the Lord (There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus – Romans 8:1).
Frankly, I was a bit out of her league (probably at least three points if we want to use that scale), but my options were pretty limited at the time, and maybe she just needed to hear it from me – a guy with a higher MMV who had remained chaste – that the condemnation she retained was a denial of God’s grace. She still had to deal with the temporal consequences: our relationship changed in a way that’s hard for me to describe, and I married someone else in short order… but she was truly forgiven. I lost track of her, but I suspect that she probably made someone else a good wife.
I can live with that.
“The obvious follow-through to “Men are not owed sex for anything.” is too delicious to remain unborn: “Women are not owed anything for sex.”
Great. If humans do not owe each other anything then where does that leave humanity?
Since it is to be expected that never-married Christians are virgins,.
Slight quibble, Lyn.
Christianity is a faith of conversion not physical birth, and the presence of born again Christians who heard the gospel at a time in their lives before they were ever aware that sex outside of marriage is sinful is quite common.
It is perfectly within every man’s (or woman’s) right to reject non-virgins of course. Just wanted to clarify that it not automatically to be expected that never-married Christians are virgins because not all adult Christians were raised in the faith.
Linker writes –
I feel shame and disgust every time I hear about a mass shooting and then learn, invariably, that the murders were committed by a man
I so totally agree with him. Women have been severely underrepresented among mass shooters, and it’s about time this country helped women fire a few rounds through the glass ceiling rampant in the mass murderer professions.
Seriously, would he feel better if the shootings were committed by a woman???
Purple Pill,
I’ve always found the idea that “people don’t each other sex” – when made as a blanket statement – to be absurd. Husbands and wives absolutely owe each other sex.
I Corinthians 7: 2-5 says, “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.”
Sane people have always understood that to mean what it says: married people owe each other sex, and everyone ought to be reasonable and loving about it. It’s only difficult if we reject the clear meaning and attempt to put a sinister spin on it. But I care not what makes heretics uneasy: since I made a vow before God to be sexually exclusive to my wife (the phrase “forsaking all others” was in the vows), then, yeah, she needs to put out for me. The obverse is also true – since she can’t have other men, I have a sexual duty to her as well.
Problem solved.
Lyn87, humans owe each other a lot more than sex.
Elspeth,
Fair enough – the girl in question grew up in a Christian home, so the exception you noted did not apply in her case. I figured I had the right to reject a non-virgin for marriage for that reason alone (and I have never shifted from that stance), but it would have been my decision to make – not hers. The only thing she would owe me is full disclosure, with no equivocation or attempts to “roll back the odometer” as Dalrock put it recently.
Of course a woman may do the same. The woman I married asked me the same question when we were dating, and was perfectly willing to walk away had I answered in the negative.
Elspeth covered much of what I was going to say in reply to your response Lyn87. Putting oneself into a Christian dating market does not translate into an implied assumption that one is a virgin. It does imply a life of chastity since conversion, but not everyone is raised in the faith. Some convert, while others fall away and then return to the fold. Now, if she had in any way implied or states or otherwise indicated that she was a virgin, and she wasn’t, then she would have wronged you. But as is, she didn’t. Any sense of expectation that she was a virgin wouldn’t have been proper unless she also indicated that she was raised in the faith and never left it.
Purple Pill,
Lyn87, humans owe each other a lot more than sex
Has anyone ever said (or even implied) otherwise?
Donalgraeme,
Obviously we were typing at the same time, since the time-stamps are identical – she grew up in a Christian home.
@Dal
Game, rape, guilt, shame, prearranged marriage, obligation, moral enforcement, really anything that removes or limits a woman’s hypergamous filtering and puts that control into the decision making process of men.
In the case of Rodger, although his killings don’t bear it out, his intent, at least as interpreted by a feminized MSM, was a presumed obligation on the part of women (and top shelf women no less) to recognize his self-perceived superior qualifications for their intimacy and reward him with sex, love, adoration, affection, etc.
Granted, the kid was a sperg with a list of very real psychological disorders, but the only thing a fem-centric society focuses on is the audacity he had in presuming he, and by association Any Man®, could assume control of a woman’s hypergamous filtering – in this case via an implied obligation.
“I often think that the androsphere should work *with* women to pile all costs onto manginas and whiteknights. That is the natural order, and perhaps the best thing for society.”
That’s been the norm in our society since about forever. Your tax dollars are going to support the needy children of dead beat player dads who have already moved on to the next girl. Even when they don’t move on (co-habit with just one woman at least for some time) they are careful not to marry so their “wifeys” can reap government benefits. This is rampant in the military.
Those who can, do. Those who can’t, pay.
Great. If humans do not owe each other anything then where does that leave humanity?
It leaves humanity in a good place that appreciates kindness and empathy. Entitlement doesn’t seem to be getting it done
Lyn87, “Has anyone ever said (or even implied) otherwise?”
Jf12 has.
I would argue that Civilization is built on suppressing (oppressing) the sexual whims of both men and women. Controlling both is necessary in order for general society to be stable and future-oriented.
@ Lyn
Got ya. Well, I’m guessing you are older than I, so perhaps at that point in time you could reasonably assume a lifetime of chastity from someone who grew up in a Christian home. But such an assumption is clearly not reasonable any longer. In fact, the reasonable thing today is to assume someone isn’t a virgin until proven otherwise.
TFH
Just game them hoes on a national scale. Tell them what they want to hear. And give a little dread and rescue drama. Build that rocket ship to mars.
“Game, rape, guilt, shame, prearranged marriage, obligation, moral enforcement, really anything that removes or limits a woman’s hypergamous filtering and puts that control into the decision making process of men.”
Alpha Dom “The Duke” says that “guilt is a tactic employed by beta males to control women they fear because they lack the dominance to inspire an empowered alpha female in control of her own sexuality to willingly release it to an alpha male.”
Sacrificing for each other voluntarily, as Christ commanded, not out of obligation to anyone but Him, and certainly not because the current political climate says people of groups A, B, and C owe something to groups X, Y, and Z.
Mainstream thinking today, based on blank-slate ideology, says that a mass murderer must have been “driven” to it somehow by things in his environment: guns, video games, bullies, Republicans, whatever. A common element is the idea that his frustrations in life build up until he can’t handle them anymore, then he snaps and kills a bunch of people. I’m riffing on that to point out that Mr. Linker seems pretty frustrated himself, since you can hear the spittle through his words when he talks about his “man problem,” so he should probably be placed on some watch lists.
I don’t actually believe the mainstream thinking; environment certainly has some effect, but most people will never “snap” and commit mass murder no matter how bad life gets, so there has to be some sort of short in the wiring — a genetic trait or damage, perhaps from medication — that makes that rare person go that far. But as I said, Mr. Linker wants to paint all men who are more successful with women than himself as would-be mass-murderers, so I’m just running with his theory and having a little fun.
“I would argue that Civilization is built on suppressing (oppressing) the sexual whims of both men and women. Controlling both is necessary in order for general society to be stable and future-oriented.”
There’s no reason to be future-oriented if you don’t have children and don’t plan on having any. The family line ends with you so why bother building something stable for the future if no one’s going to show up for it? That’s why contemporary culture is so messed up. An increasing number of people simply do not want kids. Previously everyone was expected to have kids unless they were incapable due to infertility. Some leeway may have been given for voluntary celibate mystics who eschewed family life to chase after the spiritual unknown, but for a non-mystic, fertile adult to eschew family in favor of living independently and having non-reproductive sexual relationships with multiple people was not tolerated and maybe even unheard of.
Today we have a bunch of non-mystic, non-celibate, sexually active fertile adults choosing to not have kids. That’s why so much of our culture is not future oriented. They figure, “the future ends with me”.
donalgraeme,
Premarital chastity among people who grew up in Christian homes has always been, and will always be, a reasonable expectation. It may not be common, but it is eminently reasonable. I came of age in the decade after the Sexual Revolution, and I caught a LOT of crap for my chastity. I was also aware that every single girl in my church had slept around. I’m not naive about the prevalence of fornication – it was at least as common then as it is now – but I knew that I was one of the few guys who was voluntarily celibate, and I expected to be able to have the same requirement for whomever I married.
That doesn’t preclude me from feeling a little temporary p-o’ed-ness when I discovered that a girl who should have been a virgin (a girl who put herself in the dating market as a potential wife – my potential wife) had given it up to a college boyfriend. I had every right to reject her at that point for that reason alone – but I did not have the right to be angry with her for something for which she had been forgiven by God. Having said that: if we had gotten married and I found out about her fornication later, I would have been well within my rights to send her packing.
“Mainstream thinking today, based on blank-slate ideology, says that a mass murderer must have been “driven” to it somehow by things in his environment: guns, video games, bullies, Republicans, whatever. A common element is the idea that his frustrations in life build up until he can’t handle them anymore, then he snaps and kills a bunch of people.”
That’s Roosh’s theory on Elliot Rodger. The fact is that he has struggled with mental health issues practically his entire life.
“There is much more need to suppress women than men. While women get gina tingles for criminals, men can be placated with things like lipstick, perfume, and breast implants on women. Heartiste has written about the greater dangers of unrestricted women vs. unrestricted men. ”
Unrestricted men have unprotected sex with as many women as they possibly can, leaving the fall out from such behavior behind for the rest of society to take up the slack for.
Purple Pill
Unrestricted men have unprotected sex with as many women as they possibly can,
“Some” and “all” are not equivalent concepts. Make a note of this for future reference.
Of Horses and Bicycles:
Opus relates the story:
The story resonates with me because when I was probably just out of shcool I started dating a girl who was pretty easy (that was why I stayed around) and who was keen to tell me that she a was virgin and that I was the first. She wanted to hear that from me too, so naturally ‘Reader, I lied’ ™. I had no idea what a hymen was a hymen but she was keen to explain her absence thereof and said she lost it riding horses. Now this had to be a lie; I never saw her anywhere near a horse or any photo of her with one.
Mustard says:
When I was starting to date, in the mid 60s, my Dad said a couple of things that served me well. One was a lecture on personal responsibility: “Remember: you are the man — you are responsible.” I was not surprised or offended, since I saw myself as a good guy knight; and I took it to heart.
The other thing surprised me, in that I (naive as I was) had literally no idea. It was this: He said that girls (attested to by their mothers) would claim to have had “a bicycle accident” that somehow involved an unfortunately placed handlebar, and not to believe them. I remember trying to imagine . . . how . . .
He was drawing from experiences in the 30s, when he came of age.
Countryside, think horses. In town, think bicycles.
Do you suppose that those old mothers had ever manipulated or deceived their husbands, as they were willing to deceive their prospective sons-in-law? Say it ain’t so!
This stuff has been going on a long time, including more patriarchal times than our own.
“ Unrestricted men have unprotected sex with as many women as they possibly can, leaving the fall out from such behavior behind for the rest of society to take up the slack for.”
A very small amount of men engage in such conduct. Sex is extremely difficult for men to get, even men who are skilled at it and devote a lot of time and energy to it.
When women are unrestricted, most of them engage in that conduct at least to some extent, because they can. Sex is very easy for most women to get, even women who are obese and unattractive. Women can very easily get sex, boyfriends and husbands, and it doesn’t really matter what they’re like – homely, plain, obese, overweight, out of shape, unintelligent, boring, or dull — doesn’t matter. A woman can still easily get pretty much what she wants from this SMP.
“Some” and “all” are not equivalent concepts. Make a note of this for future reference.”
Tell that to TFH who insists “all” women love serial killers.
AR
“Some” and “all” are not equivalent concepts. Make a note of this for future reference.”
Purple Pill
Tell that to TFH who insists “all” women love serial killers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
There is no purple pill, although women and manginae have been known to pretend it is so.
““Some” and “all” are not equivalent concepts.”
Where did I say “all”? It is to be noted however that where a man is diligently using contraception and discernment in his sex life, that he is not “unrestricted”.
@PurplePill, I agree people owe each other a lot of things. Married people, especially, owe each other sex and a lot of other things. You mischaracterize me by saying I do not believe people don’t owe each other.
In fact, we were talking about a *woman’s* erroneous thought, expressed as “Men aren’t owed sex for anything”, concerning which my too-clever rejoined “then women aren’t owed anything for sex” maybe sailed over something.
” You are diminishing the fact that criminal conduct in men is highly attractive to women, while criminal conduct in women is not attractive to men. ”
Attractive, charming criminals are given the benefit of the doubt, not only by *some* women but by the rest of society as well. Ted Bundy was a rising star in the Republican scene for a reason. Sociopathic narcissists are capable of turning opinion in their favor, particularly if their socially manipulative personalities are accompanied by an attractive face. People will think, “naw, he’s not capable of that”.
Jodi Arias has an online fan club full of white knights and manginas proclaiming her innocence even today. Casey Anthony’s own lawyer fell for her. Male students who get sexually manipulated, molested, even raped by their female teachers are considered “lucky” if their criminal teachers are “hot”.
Its not the crime, its the dime (piece) that matters.
Fat, ugly, creepy looking thugs of both sexes get no play. Ignorant, low class thugs with swag get play from other ignorant low class thuggettes from da block, yo! Suffice it to say that your average educated middle class woman is not on her back for Ray Ray during visiting hours, no matter how much you wish it were true, for some odd reason (???)
@Purple Pill, women will not let good men become unrestricted.
It is a truism which has not heretofore been spoken, that women LOVE to owe sex to alphas. Women feel that alphas *deserve* sex. Women feel that alphas *need* sex.
Purple Pill
Where did I say “all”?
It is implied in the term “unrestricted men” with no modifier. So any man who is not incarcerated, or otherwise limited in his movements, will tend to behave in certain ways, according to you. Thus you demonstrated ignorance of the difference between “some’ and “all”.
It is to be noted however that where a man is diligently using contraception and discernment in his sex life, that he is not “unrestricted”.
It’s a little late for backtracking. Run along, dearie.
Purple Pill
Fat, ugly, creepy looking thugs of both sexes get no play.
No. This is false. Consider just this one example:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/charles-manson-79-marry-girlfriend-star-25-article-1.1526791
Great. If humans do not owe each other anything then where does that leave humanity?
Accountable?
Exceptions are there to prove the rule. Susan Atkins also married in jail. She was Charlie’s right hand, remember? A creepy Olive Oil/Shelly Duvall looking type with that batshit crazy gleam in her eyes. Also, revisit the word “unrestricted” as it relates to sexuality.
“It is implied in the term “unrestricted men” with no modifier. So any man who is not incarcerated, or otherwise limited in his movements, will tend to behave in certain ways, according to you. ”
We were discussing sexuality. Unrestricted sexuality.
“women will not let good men become unrestricted.”
Sexually unrestricted men don’t care.
Purple Pill
Exceptions are there to prove the rule.
No. Your sweeping generalization is destroyed by a single counterexample. I have provided one. You are wrong.
We were discussing sexuality. Unrestricted sexuality.
We are not discussing anything. You are tossing red herrings around in an attempt to reframe the actual discussion. It won’t do. Run along, dearie, I’m sure there are plenty of feminist sites or tradcon sites where you can redefine words to your heart’s content, and beta orbiters will fawn over you.
Re: “Sexually unrestricted men don’t care.” Non sequitur.
“We are not discussing anything.”
You’re right, “we” weren’t discussing squat. I responded to a comment by Donalgraeme and TFH’s reply to that.
Donalgraeme,”I would argue that Civilization is built on suppressing (oppressing) the sexual whims of both men and women. Controlling both is necessary in order for general society to be stable and future-oriented.”
TFH, “There is much more need to suppress women than men. While women get gina tingles for criminals, men can be placated with things like lipstick, perfume, and breast implants on women. Heartiste has written about the greater dangers of unrestricted women vs. unrestricted men.”
By the way, Donalgraeme, if you’re still reading, I agree with you.
When women are unrestricted, most of them engage in that conduct at least to some extent, because they can. Sex is very easy for most women to get, even women who are obese and unattractive.
I was at the park today. Every single couple in the park was a slim or fit man paired with an over weight woman. In the syntax of JE: Every.single.couple.
@MarcusD
I read the Washington Post link that you provided.Thanks.I believe it.A Pastor friend of mine(of whose Church I donate to) has told me similar stories.His mother was raised in rural Quebec(French Catholic) and his Grandmother(maternal) has told him stories about how the Priest would ‘knock up’ a Nun and when the baby was born they would take it out back and drown it.What a bunch of sick people. My question to him was…”Who is the biggest murdering SOB?…The Jewish abortion doctor who terminates the pregnancy?…or the so-called “Christian” who murders a perfectly healthy live infant”??…..”Something to think about Mr.Pastor…..Shalom”
Yep. We have a new sperglord nitpicker (or perhaps an old one with a new name), trying to derail the conversation by playing dumb (probably not difficult), demanding unreasonable exactitude, and quibbling over terms. Seems to be a lot of that lately. I suppose it’s a sign that we’re getting somewhere.
” Your sweeping generalization is destroyed by a single counterexample. I have provided one. You are wrong. ”
By the looks and verbage of “Star” looks like my “sweeping generalization” is spot on!
“Ignorant, low class thugs with swag get play from other ignorant low class thuggettes from da block, yo! ”
Crazy is as crazy does.
deti, “A very small amount of men engage in such conduct. ”
Perhaps where you live. (Where do you live?) But in America there’s enough children of unmarried men raw dogging that a portion of my taxes has to go toward feeding them.
“demanding unreasonable exactitude, and quibbling over terms.”
That’s what anonymous is doing with his call for me to modify the term “unrestricted.”
“It is implied in the term “unrestricted men” with no modifier. So any man who is not incarcerated, or otherwise limited in his movements, will tend to behave in certain ways, according to you. ”
Since when on this or similar sites does “unrestricted” refer to the unincarcerated or the immobile? Since when has it becomes necessary to “modify” the term unrestricted when previously it always referred to unrestricted sexuality?
The “implication” I made was the one made by all others here when using the term “unrestricted”. When has that changed?
or perhaps an old one with a new name
My vote goes here. I’m not sure any progress is being made if it’s just the same ole trolls returning with a new moniker.
All semantics and “modifiers” aside, I think we all can agree that unrestricted, unprotected sex is a bad idea for everyone, no?
re: “I think we all can agree that unrestricted, unprotected sex is a bad idea for everyone”
I know I can agree. Especially that women should be prevented from access to unrestricted men.
“I note with amusement that a great many such articles have “comments not being accepted for this piece” disclaimers at the bottom. ”
Either that or they contain a bit along the lines of “the comments to this piece will be filled by angry fedora-wearing neckbearded Neanderthals.” Thus, any man who disagrees no matter how can be painted as a nut.
“Especially that women should be prevented from access to unrestricted men.”
The family unit is the best place for that. Strong families are the basis of any civilization. But what happens when people no longer desire to have children, as is increasingly happening in contemporary western civilization? Civilizations are built not for the current generation but for future ones. If there is no succeeding generation then what is the point of building a civilization or maintaining one already built? What you are witnessing today is a conflict in values system. Previous generations saw value in having children because their needs were met through family; physical needs, healthcare needs, sexual needs, financial needs, emotional needs, social needs psychological needs, educational needs, virtually all human needs were met through the medium of marriage and family.
For myself I get all those needs met above sans marriage and kids. Many of my generation are doing so and thus we are ambivalent about having kids. Environmentalists talk a lot about “what sort of world we are leaving behind for our children and grandchildren” but for those of us without kids and without a strong desire to have any, why should we care?
It only makes sense to care about the environment and the future if one is going to leave behind a genetic legacy. Currently, due to science, technology and social factors, there is increasing ambivalence amongst young people about the “benefits of marriage and family”.
It’d be more useful if we all agreed not to let newcomers derail our conversations with demands that we satisfy their irrelevant questions.
When I got my first Internet account in the early 1990s, my ISP gave me a document on netiquette: proper etiquette for interacting with people online. One point it made was that, when you join an online discussion forum, you should: A) read the forum’s guidelines and foundation documents (on a blog like this that would be the About page and perhaps several of the Top Posts), and B) keep your mouth shut for a week or two while you get a feel for the lay of the land, so you know what assumptions are in play and don’t annoy the regulars with dumb questions and look stupid.
If you were on the level and did that, you would already know how the regulars here would answer that question (and have answered it, many times). You’d also know why it’s insulting and troll-like to demand that we answer it now before you’ll let us go back to our discussion.
@JDG, true that women’s actual obesity rates exceed men’s in every age group, except teens. But women want to believe differently.
@Cail Corishev
It may be perfectly innocent, but PP has been on my troll radar from his/her first comment. Future comments from PP will be slightly delayed due to going first to moderation.
“Men are not OWED sex for anything”
Women, however, are owed sex. Why else would they freak the heck out when their health insurance plans considered not covering birth control? Without that coverage they might have to practice abstinence, and that just won’t do.
@Dalrock
“”PP has been on my troll radar from his/her first comment.””
Yep!…..you are always on the ball Mr.’D’.
Purple Pill Troll
You’re right, “we” weren’t discussing squat. I responded to a comment by Donalgraeme and TFH’s reply to that.
Your responses are clearly intended to derail any serious discussion here via such tired tropes as “Men Do That Too”. Run along, dearie, the adults are conversing.
@PurplePill, re: “why should we care?”
About … the fate of civilization? About … your desire to prevent other women from access to unrestricted men so you can have them all to yourself? What?
Purple Haze
Purple Pill Troll
Perhaps where you live. (Where do you live?) But in America there’s enough children of unmarried men raw dogging that a portion of my taxes has to go toward feeding them.
Deti lives in the midwestern US. You have just dragged out the apex fallacy again. Run along, dearie, you aren’t worth anyone’s time.
The late “supreme gentleman” Elliot Rodgers has attracted much worldwide attention concerning his motivations in stabbing and killing 6 people (4 guys, 2 girls). Some think it was crazy mental illness, others believe it was Hollywood movies, some think that it was truly sexual frustration and rejection by girlfriends, some think that it was the website PUAHate and a couple muse about other reasons.
To be honest Cail, I made my point hours ago and moved on. Anonymous was the one asking me to “modify” my use of the term “unrestricted” (to clarify that I didn’t mean unincarcerated or immobile persons, WTF?) even though it was clear in TFH’s comment what he meant by that word, and what I meant in using the same word to respond to his comment (hint: we meant the same exact thing). Its over. You are free to move on and resume your discussion, with no demands whatsoever from me.
Lyn87 re: expectations of virginity from non-married Christians. I wanted to find out who this Pastor Driscoll was Dalrock referenced so I searched his name. One website describes him as “preaching blow jobs from the pulpit”! Is that his version of “man up”? Anyway, in doing so I came across “Sex, Millennials, and the Church: 5 Implications” with the number one implication being “1. Most Millennials, including Christian Millennials, see nothing wrong with unmarried persons living together. Many of them will come to our churches and be surprised to hear their behavior is sinful. How churches handle this reality will determine the success of efforts to reach the generation.”
http://www.christianpost.com/news/sex-millennials-and-the-church-5-implications-118991/
Someone upthread mentioned that comments are on the site in question via Disqus, that explains my incorrect observation. I run browsers very tightly buttoned down, generally with minimal java / javascript turned on and no cookies. Thus I don’t see Disqus comment windows via those browsers. As I do not have a Disqus account, it doesn’t much matter to me.
I guess I could fire up a Disqus-compatible browser setting and go see what comments look like, but there are other things with higher priorities to do.
alcestiseshtemoa, you’re a bit late to the thread, and to the topic. You might want to do a search on the Santa Barbara goblin[*] and “Xanax” just for a start. Heartiste has some insight as well.
[*]I have a new personal rule regarding mass murderers – I don’t put their names in print, because I don’t want to add to their infamy. It would be better for society if such people were as a rule buried in an unmarked grave and their names removed from as many records as possible, i.e. they became “unpersons” in a sense. This would take some of the glamour away from such crimes, which would in turn reduce the popularity of such actions among the mentally unstable, IMO.
I know I can agree. Especially that women should be prevented from access to unrestricted men.
Me too, specifically in the patriarchal sense.
A tip of the hat to Polar Guy, who is telling it straight on Catholic Answers Forum.
“@JDG, true that women’s actual obesity rates exceed men’s in every age group, except teens. But women want to believe differently.”
Women biologically have more body fat than men so its expected that they’d become even more obese than men on average when they do let themselves go. The male physique tends toward lean, angular musculature while the female physique tends toward soft curves. Both are attracted to each other, except when they are not (extremes of leanness or softness). Due to not caring about the future (see my comment regarding a recent shift in values due to technological and social change), modern people are prone toward excess and gluttony.
“@PurplePill, re: “why should we care?”
About … the fate of civilization? About … your desire to prevent other women from access to unrestricted men so you can have them all to yourself? What?”
About what I wrote about. The future, the environment, what will happen to successive generations growing up in such a polluted, messed up world. Those of us without children don’t really think about these things. Concern for future generations, civilization, the environment, etc are really the domain of worry for parents, not the child-free.
Please note that I am not “anti-family”. I’m trying to show you what sort of ambivalence we millennials have toward these things and why you have such a difficult time understanding us.
Either female or mangina, my personal opinion leans towards the former, due to a smattering of semantic analysis – the “Men Do That Too”, for example. I could be wrong, but for now that’s my position.
Damon Linker:
“The woman you long to sleep with, like the world itself, owes you absolutely nothing.”
Actually, the world owes us men a great deal and I’m not talking about entitlements. If you’re a producer not a parasite, society owes you your wages–otherwise, you won’t work as hard and pay as many taxes. If you’re sexually responsible, society owes you higher status because pimps and baby mommas are bad for society. If you want to help other people, society owes you immunity to frivolous lawsuits, lest you give up on other people. And if you decide to raise children, society must give you authority over your kids so you can carry the responsibility. Things don’t work when society only exists to make demands of its subjects.
As Mr. Graeme rightly pointed out, Civilization needs sexually controlled men and women. The implication here is society owes us men well-behaved women. (And vice versa, but one can’t ask for a more hard-working, responsible husband than the average frivorce victim.) What happens when men don’t get that? Society itself suffers, which is why this isn’t a mere entitlement.
PP,
This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkaeAkJO0w8&feature=kp) is one the more famous sermons by Mark Driscoll. This is the one where he screams “How dare You!” over and over at the men in his church for not treating all women with the utmost respect. Not some women: ALL WOMEN. He clearly believes that respect is only owed to women, though, because he treats men with disrespect on a regular basis. In Mister Driscoll’s world, respect is something men may earn, but something to which women are entitled to by birth. So of course, when he addresses bad things women do, it’s not their fault. In another video he read a letter from a woman who broke curfew at a Bible college to go to the beach and have sex with her boyfriend. She wrote, “He took advantage of me on the beach.” Mister Driscoll didn’t bat an eyelash as he read that preposterous claim. He did not scream “How Dare You!” that a supposedly Christian woman would lay the blame for her willing fornication on her boyfriend and accept none for herself.
Mark Driscoll is a good-looking guy who likes to denigrate the men in his church in front of the women in his church… you may draw your own conclusions from that.
Donalgraeme:
You’re right of course.
“It is impossible to ignore the extent to which civilization is built up on renunciation of instinctual gratifications, the degree to which the existence of civilization presupposes the non-gratification (suppression, repression, or something else?) of powerful instinctual urgencies. This cultural privation dominates the whole field of social relations between human beings; we know already that it is the cause of the antagonism against which all civilization has to fight.” (Freud, Civilization and its Discontents, page 22)
Boxer
TFH:
Agreed. This place is way too valuable to me, to waste any of my own reading time entertaining masochists like these. Any response at all merely honors the unworthy.
@JDG, true that women’s actual obesity rates exceed men’s in every age group, except teens. But women want to believe differently.
Don’t get me started on what I saw at Walmart.
I guess if:
1) single gals in the US overwhelmingly had strong moral character
2) and hearts of gold
3) and we didn’t live in a society where a wife can legally destroy your family
then I could then understanding this type of pairing up.
As things stand today in the here and now i’m afraid I just don’t get it. Even the average ‘blue pill’ guy knows that he can be devastated in family court. And it’s not like these girls are super attractive. The guys have got to be higher on the attraction scale just from weight alone.
I could understand the occasional jewel in the rough and the guy who likes big girls, but this appears to be the norm and not the exception. So why are so many guys pairing up with these women?
> I have a new personal rule regarding mass murderers – I don’t
> put their names in print, because I don’t want to add to their infamy.
AR, I saw a chick’s blog at Psychic’s Today who was also doing this.
I suggested we instead start calling him “the problem with no name”.
lolzzzz
It does have a certain ring to it.
IME, way too little attention has been paid to the fact that Rodgers was a fifteen year hostage of the divorce industrial complex (et al). They know how to screw `em up good, even before the schools and pill-pushers get at them.
@JDG, “So why are so many guys pairing up with these women?”
Most of the men literally have no other choices, if they want to get some sex.
After the next shooting spree, Linker will pen an article titled, “Now we are ALL Manginas: the case for universal castration”.
Most of the men literally have no other choices, if they want to get some sex.
15 or 20 years ago I could see this being the case, but now marrying a woman from a saner culture than ours is not that difficult. It can be a bit expensive due to unreasonable filing fees, but it is certainly doable for a man who has enough resources to attract an American girl.
Of course there is still a stigma associated with marrying a foreign bride, and I suppose a lot of guys are in the ‘It won’t happen to me’ camp.
Wow MarcusD, despite your continual dropping of links to CAF here, today is the first time I actually clicked on one and began perusing the forums.
I found THIS thread: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=886530
Holy feminine imperative hamster crack, check out the wife’s case for seeking approval from the forum members to get a divorce and the husband discovers the thread and posts a response.
The you go girl “frenzyjen” accuses him of being abusive and uncaring of his wife’s feelings and he needs to MAN UP.
Is this par for the course over there?
It appears that the publication linked to is an online version of a British magazine. That would explain some things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Week
AMB
Note how quickly the wakeup call narrative comes into play on that thread. That has thoroughly replaced biblical teaching in the role of a wife.
I’m actually glad clowns like these are doing their whole “man up” routine. I could almost swear that this was some kind of parody or satire used to rouse men up and get them to finally push back against this kind of reckless hate….almost. But then I have to remind myself, we live in a gyno-theocratic society so I wouldn’t be surprised that there are men that actually live and breath this rubbish. The more obtuse and radical their writings become against men, the more men “on the fence” will eventually learn the truth of misandry and start fighting back. Then again, the pull of “woman worship” may just be too strong for most guys.
Every “man up” shaming tactic is intrinsically related to the service of women, almost exclusively. None of it has been or ever will be a rallying cry for men to live a life for God, and to focus on Him as the overall goal, as Paul did and to do so ONLY for Him because He is worth it. Every bit of “man up” Churchian sermonizing has always had quite a bit of female worship. I don’t see any of this changing anytime soon. It’ll get worse before it gets better. Thankfully, more and more men are waking up and, it is my deepest prayer, that they hold steadfast to Christ while they walk away from the church. Although the church failed them, God will NEVER fail them.
Somehow, every facet of society, including some PUA corners always propose solutions to widespread social ill’s as having the root cause based in and around men. Therefore it’s always “how can men or guys do [fill in the blank] to improve, solve, or help [fill in the blank] problem”. Responsibility with no judicial discretion to execute the office of responsibility is NOT leadership…it’s SLAVERY! Vis-a-vis, when Churchians and PUA’s scream “man up” (Churchian “beta up” and PUA “alpha up”), they clearly disregard and absolutely ignore the heavily misandric laws leveled against men. It’s no different than demanding men take a drunken stroll in an active minefield.
“Note how quickly the wakeup call narrative comes into play on that thread. That has thoroughly replaced biblical teaching in the role of a wife.”
Seems like the “divorce whispers” are a full force gale over there. Every thread I look at that has a wife complaining or ranting about her husband/married life, there seems to be a gaggle of harpies very quick to urge a fellow sister into exercising her threatpoint privileges under Marriage 2.0.
And this is supposed to be a Catholic forum, yet the moderators allow women to constantly and consistently advise separation and divorce everytime a woman drops a one-sided story of “abuse” and “addiction?”
Then you (or others who frequent that place) MUST recruit that husband to come here. His life may depend on it. Plus, it will add to red-pill ranks..
I’m not registered there, I was simply lurking. You’re right though, he seems already open to the idea of the red pill. Note his response to frenzyjen, the feminist telling him to MAN UP:
“Of course, because I’m a guy I’m a bad person, right? Because I think married partners should share responsibility, I’m automatically a chovanistic (sp?) pig? What is going on with this world!??”
I just registered there, but I’m not sure how I can direct him here with out giving the moderators a red flag. Any ideas?
“Nowhere in your post do you address the way that your wife is feeling because of your actions. You don’t accept any accountability for her feeling like she is at the end of her rope in your marriage. You are making it all about you. Even if everything that you said is true, I’m concerned at your lack of concern for her feelings. “
We would do well to remember this the next time somebody disputes the legitimacy and accuracy of the term “Feminine Imperative.”
Even IF the wife spends all day on facebook while the house and children are neglected, and even if the husband works full time and puts in extra hours to study for a CPA exam AND comes home and still “helps out with the children,” his “lack of concern for her feelings” still trumps all else.
CAF – validating everything you’ve blogged about here for the past 4 years, D.
Someone should “man up” and marry this just turned 30 woman on the west coast of BC. She is looking for someone older, successful and who is ready to settle down. She also wants to change her career in the fall. Sounds like someone is heading to the wall and the brakes are fading. This add is on CL, but won’t bother linking as most can read between the lines and these adds are everywhere.
That man up rant is so dumb that It almost drives me to drink.
TFH I believe the moderators are familiar with Dalrock’s name (though I could be wrong), and I’m trying to think of someway to get him to find it with out attracting unwanted attention. However, my post over there might be enough to get me banned already, so I may have nothing to lose.
Here is FrenzyJen’s characteristics of abusive men post:
Superiority–Contempt for woman as stupid, unworthy, a sex object or as a house keeper.
Externalization of Responsibility –Shifting blame for his actions and their effects to others, especially the woman, or to external factors such as job stress.
Denial, Minimization, & Victim Blaming –Refusing to acknowledge abusive behaviour (e.g. she fell), not acknowledging the seriousness of his behaviour and its effects (e.g., it’s just a scratch), blaming the victim (e.g., she drove me to it; she made it up because I have a new girlfriend).
Entitlement– Entitlement is the “overarching attitudinal characteristic” of abusive men, a belief in having special rights without responsibilities, justifying unreasonable expectations (e.g., family life must centre on his needs). He will feel the wronged party when his needs are not met and may justify violence as self-defence.
Selfishness & Self-centredness– An expectation of being the centre of attention, having his needs anticipated. May not support or listen to others.
Superiority– Contempt for woman as stupid, unworthy, a sex object or as a house keeper.
You go girl.
JDG:
Don’t directly hyperlink. Drop a request that interested dudes google “Dalrock blog on marriage and relationships” or something similar. I kept my account open at CAF despite openly laughing at the local feminists, until I directly hyperlinked over here.
http://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/sweet-spirits/
Good on you for doing this!
Boxer
I finally settled on this:
Be Truthful, please Google “Thoughts from a happily married father on a post feminist world” (should be the 1st link) for a conversation outside of the feminist narrative.
I’m sure you already know the scriptures because even by your wife’s admission you work hard to provide for your family. However, here are a few I like to remember when my wife tries my patience:
Ephesians 5:25, Ephesians 5:33 , and 1 Peter 3:7.
May God keep you and your family in His grace.
Apologies to those who are offended by my poor choice of words. I did not mean to imply that one has to know the scriptures to work hard for one’s family.
Boxer is that your own web site, or is it somewhere anyone can sign up and post pictures?
JDG and TFH:
This is brilliant and cuts right to the core of the issue. I have to wonder who “tickled” my own mother’s ear before she blew up my childhood. I have several suspects…
It’s rude and sorta un-gentlemanly to post contrarian messages on a blue pill forum, but in this context we have the potential to keep parents thinking about what’s best for their kids, rather than about how much fun they’ll have as newly “liberated” singles.
I honestly don’t give a damn if childless couples divorce. If anything, I think many of them would be happier doing so; but as these people have little kids, it’s on us to spread the truth about the price those little ones will be paying so mom (and sometimes dad) can “have it all”.
Boxer
JDG: That’s my own (seldom used) blog.
Holy Cow, CAF just gets worse and worse. It’s bad enough that half of them advise vain repetitions (Matt 6:7) and praying to dead people, but these harpies have swallowed every pop-psych fad of the past 100 years while utterly rejected the Bible. Seriously, I thought Catholics were allowed to read the Bible now, how can they know so little about what it actually says?
God wants you to be happy? Really? My Bible says that God wants us to be holy (1 Peter 1:16).
It’s his job to make her happy. Nope, he’s doing his job (and quite a bit of her, it seems) demonstrably better than his Facebook Fanatic wife is doing hers.
She should reward him with “permission” to play when he jumps through her hoops. Nope again: she should submit to him, which absolutely precludes treating him like a child under her authority.
She should leave, or threaten to. Not only has she not even alleged any legitimate grounds for that, but issuing threats to a husband who is doing his duty is the opposite of being submissive, which, unlike refraining from Everquest, is an actual Biblical mandate.
And that nut-bag with the “Duluth Model” list just needs to STFU.
Lyn87 your ability to read through the bull and connect the dots in reality is refreshing. Do you mind if I borrow some of what you wrote to post over there?
Do you mind if I borrow some of what you wrote to post over there?
Have at it – this guy needs help, and he sure isn’t going to get much from the people there.
I forgot to use italics for FrenzyJen’s post at June 4, 2014 at 8:33 pm. The “You go girl” was mine.
Lyn:
“FrenzyJen” claims to have several kids. She never talks about a husband, that I have found. I’m sure you’re as shocked as I am about that little tidbit.
I feel sorry for her sons (she claims to have at least two).
Boxer,
It does not surprise me at all. She’s clearly a hard-core feminist and misandrist (but I repeat myself). Nobody quotes the Duluth Model like that unless she’s really drunk deeply from the “Haterade” bottle. I’d bet dollars-to-doughnuts that she’s divorced from a man she thinks of as an “abuser,” and ran him through the legal wringer with every tool the law put within her reach. There is no way a woman like that should be on her own, not under the authority of a strong husband… and certainly not raising boys on her own. Poor little dudes barely have a chance – she’s likely to turn them in Norman Bates.
This is priceless,
Someone who calls herself “A Warning” posted this:
She dismisses this as an anti-woman website (no, really), and calls JDG a “troll,” although she seems devoid of examples of any troll-like behavior on his part. Here’s the kicker, though, she actually put a link to this very thread and said where to go to get to the comments about CAF – so now people can just click on her link and then form their own opinions.
Seriously, you can’t pay for advertising like that. Did one of you guys do it?
My first troll accusation.
Hopefully Be truthful and Be Courageous will read the scriptures I posted and seek God’s council instead of listening to those who follow the wicked teachings of feminism. I really hope the best for them.
Hats off from me too, for this great bit of black propaganda. LOL! I wish I could claim responsibility, but they’ve got my IP range on a list at this point.
Somebody over on CAF writes, about us:
Just for the record, for any visitors, I did not accuse FrenzyJen of being “husbandless”. I accused her of never mentioning her husband.
I remember, years ago, stumbling across a ton of letters that my mother wrote to various family members, over the years. I found it astounding to note that she never once mentioned my father — her husband at the time — in all these dozens of missives, penned over the course of several years. It was as though he didn’t exist. “I did this” “This month I took [young Boxer and his sister] here and there…” It was quite something.
FrenzyJen may well be married, but her hateful articles struck sort of a chord with me for personal reasons, in that she follows this same pattern. “My house” , “My oldest son” blah blah. For toxic women like these, it’s all about them.
Regards, Boxer
JDG,
My first troll accusation.
Nobody should be surprised by that: this is a classic case of an attempt at “Rebuilding the Mound.” Dalrock did a post about that very thing in February:
(https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/rebuilding-the-mound/).
You were not troll-like at all – you merely quoted a few scriptures (which she didn’t even try to refute) and directed them to a website about men from a Christian perspective. If that’s all it takes to be labeled a “troll” at CAF, then they could use a little more introspection. But since they are largely incapable of that, it was nice of you to point out that there are people who think that the Bible is a better place to seek guidance than post-modern pop-psych. Well done, Sir.
@AnonymousManosphereBlogger
Already saw it; it’s par for the course there (and yes, women do seek, often, to assuage their consciences, or have them assuaged (vis-a-vis ‘frivorce’) by posting some lopsided record of events).
FrenzyJen (an apt name) does indeed strike me as someone suffering the Duluth syndrome.
And they wonder why men avoid marriage…
—
@crimsonviceroy
Every “man up” shaming tactic is intrinsically related to the service of women, almost exclusively.
It reminds me of Dr. Baumeister’s address to the American Psychological Association in ’07 (not mentioned in his address, but he does touch on things relating to the 100 men, 100 women island scenario).
Seems like the “divorce whispers” are a full force gale over there.
Yet they even express concern about a “marriage crisis.”
—
@TFH
Also, on the Forum, can he be private messaged?
He can, but it looks like someone posted a comment on there.
—
@Lyn87
She dismisses this as an anti-woman website
Calling for things like female accountability can be construed that way (in other news, feminists like hypoagency – cf. GWW).
and calls JDG a “troll,”
That’s very common behaviour on there (it’s actually below “ad hominem” on the scale of argumentation).
The amount of secondhand embarrassment I feel for many of the posters on CAF is hard to convey. Their arguments (if you can call them that) are so lacking in substance and merit as to actually lead me to believe that they are some sort of Turing test.
Somewhat related:
Make-up sex? Get it while you can! New Massachusetts bill will force divorcing couples to get court approval before sleeping together
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2589216/Make-sex-Get-New-Massachusetts-bill-force-divorcing-couples-court-approval-sleeping-together.html
Ca Bill Demands Verbal Or Written Consent For Sex On College Campuses
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-California/2014/06/04/College-Students-May-Need-Verbal-or-Written-Consent-to-Have-Sex-on-Campus
Semi-OT, but for those who don’t know, Damon Linker is another one of these former “conservatives” like Kevin Phillips, John Dean, and Frank Schaeffer, who work in the world of conservative ideas for a while–in Linker’s case, as the editor of the Catholic neoconservative journal First Things–then turn around and write a tell-all book bleating to liberals about how horrible and dangerous conservatives are.
Hmmm:
Absence of Father Causes Early Puberty and Risky Sexual Behavior
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=887360
—
More on that topic:
http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2014/01/paternal-disengagement-and-female.html
http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2014/02/gss-links-between-paternal.html
MarcusD:
This is an amazing bit of journalistic weasel-talk. What the bill actually seems to be aimed at is women who move their thug boyfriend into the home, to be around the children of the marriage, while said wife is still married to the father who is required to pay the bills.
It’s almost to be expected that the Daily Fail would spin this for all its worth.
it is my deepest prayer, that they hold steadfast to Christ while they walk away from the church
Not to be confused with the bride of Christ (His church):
22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church [a]in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.
28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body.
31 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.
Drats! I missed a marker again.
Another bushel of bulls**t over on Catholic Answers:
Sunshine Mary (I believe) wrote an article years ago on wimminz like this. Feminists and other damaged wimminz hate their more normal sisters with a pure hatred, as the latter illustrates the shortcomings of the former. The tactic is to encourage all the normal women to become divorced, tattooed, skanked-up ho’s, simply because misery loves company. Hence the latest trends (virgin shaming, slut walks, divorce parties, etc.)
This CAF thread is a great illustration. Whereas we see two people who may be having some trouble, and Brother JDG is making salient points and giving good advice (i.e. to read the wisdom of the ancients and concentrate on getting along together), the best advice of the damaged wimminz of CAF is to encourage the woman to see her husband as an abuser (which he obviously isn’t — I’m sure he’s not perfect, but he doesn’t seem too terrible). The wimminz of the Catholic Answers Forum basically want to add another divorced, single-mom slut to their burgeoning ranks. Never mind any kids this couple has, who will soon become bastardized divorce-orphans, either.
Really boggles the mind how destructive these sickos are.
Boxer
It seems that Red-ink screaming FrenzyJen is aptly named. Rather reminds me of Hitchcock’s undercast movie Frenzy, where the murderer *spoiler alert* had red hair.
It amazes me that that forum can pass for Roman Catholic; if that is Catholicism count me out, but I see the Anglicans don’t want me either as they have just banned all patriots (nationalists). 😦
Gentlemen (and Ladies),
I don’t always agree with you, but in the case of that CAF thread you talk about, I have to admit that I am saddened by some posters’ haste to advise ‘Be Courageous’ to ‘take a hard line’ with her husband. And yes, the husband is right – these strangers don’t even know the full story, they just hear one side of the argument and their first reaction is to lash out at the man. This re-inforces in my mind just how anti-man our society has become. It is trily mind-boggling, and I think it is highly destructive to life (as indeed we all know – talk about being late to the party in this regard, LOL).
As for the Frenzied Lady, my verdict on her is this:
She is committing a heinous crime which she may not be aware of. She appears to be full of anger at her own husband or some other man in her life or in general, and she is projecting that anger in her comments to both ‘Be Courageous’ and her husband. Her crime is not so much that she is full of anger (though it is clearly eating her, which is painful for others to observe and is also bad for her personally), but that due to this anger, SHE IS CURRENTLY NOT FIT TO ADVISE ANOTHER WOMAN ON THE MATTERS OF MARRIAGE.
She should stay away from CAF until she has sorted out her own personal anger issues, for then, she will be in a better position to advise someone else with true wisdom, as she is called to do.
But there is a silver lining – it is fair to say that many posters actually didn’t make ‘pronunciations’ as such, they simply advised ‘Be Courageous’ to pray. That was good…so all hope is not lost.
Someone else mentioned about ‘the problem with no name’ and the divorce of his parents being a major factor. In this case, it was the infidelity of his father that instigated the process, but it could be that it was his mother who filed, I don’t know. But whoever filed, the selfishness of the father is not to be glossed over…
But the sad thing is, NO-ONE seemed to care about this boy. He mentions in his manifesto about pockets of love from his mother and another woman called ‘Kim’, perhaps a nanny(?) but the running theme in his life is that his self-destructive thoughts are left to fester, with no-one taking time to take him through the steps of life, particularly his father, with whom he has a very thready bond. His younger sister may have fared better, but perhaps she also is at risk of the fallout from bad ‘early years parenting’. Perhaps the manifestation of HER issues will come out when she is older…but I sincerely hope not, of course. He, on the other hand suffered early on in his life, and sadly did not get the patience he needed (or the guidance/advice) to realise that his life would get better in his later years, at least from the sexual standpoint (it seems a lot of his frustration was indeed sexual, poor chap).
Please take some time to view the following video. It is exceedingly long (longer than my posts (heh!) but it is well worth the time.
I dare anyone to push for divorce after watching this video (not that anyone here is pro-divorce, thank God).
I am not into statistics, or the big studies… I always look at individual stories to build a picture of the overall situation. This is how my mind works. And in this case, yes, I conclude from several individual anecdotes that divorce is bad, really bad. And even without my Catholic upbringing, certainly after watching this video, this will be forever my conclusion.
As we rapidly approach our first anniversary, I pray that this message stays with me forever.
Is it just me or is Linker *actually* urging men to Man Up by owning up to being a “leering, groping, cat-calling, date-raping, would-be mass-murdering man”, just like Rodger did in his manifesto?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but if Rodger had become more fully female in appearance, I think he would have found girls to be easier.
It amazes me that that forum can pass for Roman Catholic; if that is Catholicism count me out,
The disease has inflicted all Christians, at least in North America. It plays itself out differently, in terms of manifest symptoms, depending on context, but the underlying disease is the same.
Even in Orthodoxy we have it, but most newcomers don’t see it because it is more hidden than in other churches and they don’t know what to look for. +15 years down the track, like me, I know what to look for, and I see it everywhere.
Yeah I know his background. He’s a bitch, plain and simple. He’s flipped to the enemy, and now he is the face of it — as comfy as that is when embracing the enemy simply means accepting baptism in the reigning Cathedral.
Why doesn’t using “game” tactics work over at CAF?
If you act like a dumbshit, they will treat you as an equal.
Corollary: if you act as an equal, they will treat you like a dumbshit.
Happy trolling!
Hermes
Semi-OT, but for those who don’t know, Damon Linker is another one of these former “conservatives” like Kevin Phillips, John Dean, and Frank Schaeffer, who work in the world of conservative ideas for a while–in Linker’s case, as the editor of the Catholic neoconservative journal First Things–then turn around and write a tell-all book bleating to liberals about how horrible and dangerous conservatives are.
This back story of the manUP writer, Linker, is very much on topic, in my opinion. Combine that with the nature of the publication supporting the website, and it becomes quite clear that the rant in question is a little whiff of desperation. Or, as TFH put it, “doubling down” on feminism.
Thanks for the info and the link, it’s useful.
@MarcusD
There is no better sign about how anti marriage the culture at Catholic Answers Forum is than the immediate offense which is taken to a pro married family study. The second response to the link/quote:
This is of course a purely emotional response by one who is in rebellion against biblical teaching on marriage. Without divorce there can be no wifely threats of divorce, and without wifely threats of divorce there could be no (anti biblical) wakeup call view of marriage. If a few, or a few thousand, or a few million kids need to suffer the fate of growing up without their fathers, so be it. At least their “improvements” over God’s design for marriage are left in place. Crisis averted.
@Anon Reader
Even without the backstory, the whole piece is dripping with desperation. More than anything he is bemoaning his powerlessness to get men to change according to his feminist fantasy. The reference to the nutjob killer is a bit of a distraction in that sense, because if he wanted to change men from being nutjob killers aside from some true outliers that task is already done. What has him reaching for the Midol is the fact that after forty years of feminist indoctrination and a total overhaul of society the New Feminist Man (and woman) has yet to appear. They have already pulled every lever to pull, and yet they haven’t gotten (and won’t get) what they want.
An interesting side note (at least to me). “A Warning” registered at CAF the same day that I did.
Martian Bachelor I’m serious about my concern for their marriage. I’m honestly not trolling.
To anyone from CAF who may be reading:
I don’t recruit for a “red pill cult”*, but I speak the truth as I understand it. I am a Christian and I want other’s to know Christ, and I also want people to grow up in Christ.
People often recite the passage from Matthew 28: 19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” but these same people often forget about verse 20: “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”
As I began to understand that my fellow Christians were not teaching and living as the Bible instructed, I began to search long and hard for the truth. I discovered that many who called him self a brother (or sister) were unlearned in bible teaching as well as historical facts.
Still others who did read their bibles defended their version of Christian living by taking scripture out of context, ignoring certain passages altogether, repeating made up stories that supposedly explained away certain passages, and claiming that certain Greek and Hebrew terms meant things that they do not.
In my quest I discovered that feminism has infected most of Western “Christianity”, and many false teachings have spread from church to church to the extent that now even the Holy Bible is called into question.
So, yes I do want more people to learn “red pill” ideas, because they correlate with reality as revealed through scripture much better than the falsehoods perpetuated in the media, academia, and most of society at large.
I want people to return to the basic truths that are taught in the Bible as we make disciples of men and teach then to observe all that Jesus has commanded them to.
*Since when is it a cult believe the unchanging truths found in the Bible or the evidence found in statistics?
Note on Purple Pill: He/she left another 5 comments which went to moderation in quick succession. As I mentioned above, the way PP entered the site raised my suspicion, with several off topic posts about the Lifetime movie under different names. Something about PP reminds me of a recurring troll this site and HUS has had for years, and it looks like I wasn’t the only one. I may be wrong about this, but I’m going with my gut and pulling the plug.
What should we call an anti-concern troll?
@Dalrock
Hahahahahaha! Man, I fell out. Hilarious.
If a woman owes a man nothing… why is it that women expect that men owe them something (subsidized healthcare, subsidized social security since women live 7 years longer, publicly funded women’s programs…) I see nothing wrong with the men that think women owe them sex when those same women complaining about this entitlement on the males behaves thinks it is a mans job to give up his seat on a lifeboat, pay taxes to subsidize her retirement, pay higher health insurance premiums to subsidize female health insurance, pay child support and be a father because she wants a child when she doesn’t….
Correct me if I’m wrong, but if Rodger had become more fully female in appearance, I think he would have found girls to be easier.
Casual observation leads me to conclude that, yes, within the morally and socially diseased circle within which Rodger lived (SoCal’s wealthy celeb culture), becoming a heavily feminized (even androgynous) hyper-metrosexual would’ve gotten him more female attention, although still probably no sex. All it would have cost him was the last vestiges of what very little self-respect he had.
@feeriker, not to be too obtuse, but I’m talking about him presenting himself in appearance as fully female.
Craig,
I have often marveled at the desire by feminists to maintain the parts of patriarchy that benefit women (male obligations and female privileges) while jettisoning the parts that do not benefit them (female obligations and male privileges). It’s bad enough that they do so, but to do so under the banner of “equality” is too much to stomach.
Take child-support, for example. One could make the case that a woman who got pregnant was saddled with an unbearable burden though only half at fault. It’s not great, but at least it has SOME rationale besides a naked grab for resources, and the paying man had gotten something out of it, even if only an orgasm. But baby-mommas who milk the taxpayer offer us NOTHING in return at all. She doesn’t owe me sex – fine, I accept that – but if I do not have the rights of a husband (use of her body), why does she have the rights of a wife (use of my money)?
It is THEY who turned this from a community of different rights and responsibilities, not us. But since they insist that we’re nothing but commodities, just what do they owe to procure the benefits of those commodities?
TFH,
Yep, father-to-mother CS is a mess, especially when women can give birth or procure an abortion without the aquiescence of the father, who has legal responsibilities for whatever choice she makes.
But at least there is SOME rationale for it: the people who made the kid don’t get to saddle taxpayers with the bills. But to allow single women who bear bastards by choice to legally plunder the public treasury is just nuts. Not only does it create perverse incentives, but it gives single women the rights of wives, and mostly-male taxpayers the obligations of husbands without giving those men the rights of husbands or the women the responsibilities of wives.
@Dalrock
PP looked like PJ (PlainJane / somethingorother permaculture / endless) to me.
FWIW – good call
From the Den:
(Xantippe)
Anybody who believes CAF to be a hotbed of feminist sentiment is…kind of out there.
Some relevant articles on the notion:
http://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/checking-the-ph-of-the-fish-tank/
http://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/if-you-use-their-words-you-will-end-up-thinking-their-thoughts/
http://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2013/11/16/liberalism-and-the-destruction-of-the-good-the-true-and-the-beautiful/
http://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/the-war-on-womenngitis/
From the Den:
(Xantippe)
Anybody who believes CAF to be a hotbed of feminist sentiment is…kind of out there.
http://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/checking-the-ph-of-the-fish-tank/
http://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/if-you-use-their-words-you-will-end-up-thinking-their-thoughts/
http://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/the-war-on-womenngitis/
@TFH
So wait, the ‘Catholic’ forum wants to increase divorce, and is led by a screaming slut-witch who calls herself ‘FrenzyJen’ and demands that every husband be seen as evil, while the place that wants to preserve marriage and maybe even follow the Bible is a ‘cult’?
Well: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” (Isaiah 5:20)
It’s appropriate that Marxism would lead to that.
But yes, in general it is the predominant pathology of CAF to disregard men almost entirely. There’s an overall gynocentric feel to the place.
@feeriker, not to be too obtuse, but I’m talking about him presenting himself in appearance as fully female.
Yes, that would probably have succeeded too (heck, THAT might’ve even gotten him laid, considering the type of “women” that comprised his demographic milieu).
@Dalrock
There is no better sign about how anti marriage the culture at Catholic Answers Forum is than the immediate offense which is taken to a pro married family study.
It’s stunning.
The objecting comment is fact-free – there is a lot of research on paternal disengagement, and the GSS demonstrates quite clearly the effects.
So why are so many guys pairing up with these women?
Of course, when the majority of American women is overweight, there are no other options. You have this or your hand. Expatriating is only feasible and attractive for a minority (I am an expat so I am a member of this minority). Relationship with foreign brides are difficult and people are not still used to them.
However, they are increasing. We are exporting more and more Central American single moms to Western countries, where men are eager to marry these “quality women” and support their children.
The last month I have known three cases among my acquaintances: an obese women of 35 y.o with her 14 y.o. kid goes to Germany, a slim woman of 23 y.o with a 4 y.o. kid goes to the States, a slim woman of 24 y.o. with a 2 y.o. baby goes to Canada. Here in Central America, the quality of men that these women can get for commitment is very low. But I know their boyfriends in developed countries and they are higher betas (and I know that those guys are very happy to economically support other men’s children).
But I digress. I continue below.
So why are so many guys pairing up with these women?
Feminism was based on the idea that the demand for women was inelastic with respect to price and quality. That is, that women could:
– Degrade dramatically their physical attractiveness (obesity, being less feminine, cursing like a sailor, have ugly clothes, dressing in a skanky way).
– Decrease drastically their psychological attractiveness (shallowness, being bitchy, slutty, rude, unfaithful and entitled).
– Decrease drastically the things they are willing to do for men (cooking, household chores, being faithful)
– Increase their price (student debt, alimony and child support).
and even with all this, men would still be willing to have sex with them, give them resources and wife them up.
In short, feminism was based on the idea that women could degrade drastically their quality and increase their price and men would still willing to “buy” them. The demand for women is inelastic.
Well, some decades down the line, we can say that feminist were mostly true. The demand is mostly inelastic. Of course, the marriage rates have decreased somewhat during these decades, but nothing compared to the dramatic decrease of quality and increase of price of American women. If a woman in America does not get married, it is only because she is incredibly picky. Droves of betas are eager to kiss these roll meats when they get the opportunity.
We are exporting more and more Central American single moms to Western countries, where men are eager to marry these “quality women” and support their children.
I know more than 25 men with Asian brides, and out of those four of the women had children previously (some of the men did too). Most of the brides and the grooms appear to be responsible and sane. A few of the women are slightly over weight, but they are good to their husbands and take marriage seriously. They still view divorce as a huge status hit. I don’t know how the daughters will turn out being raised in the US. If I had a daughter, I would probably move over seas.
I think the best way to get to these guys, is to pull a covert Streisand effect, by posting as a female, pretending to warn them about those “creepy” and “dangerous’ sites, like Return of Kings, Spearhead and Dalrock.
Something like,
“Girls, seriously, just be careful what you say and post (think divorce court and your children!), there are some women-hating trolls watching these forums (probably drooling from their mom’s basement), and they are posting about anyone woman wanting a divorce on here, and how her husband isn’t “all that bad” (their words, not mine!) and stuff they think they can understand from the forums here (as if any American man could understand what we are going through). I don’t trust ANY of these sites to not spread your posts or even contact you directly by PM, and they certainly are not the Christians they claim to be. Most are not even Catholic I don’t think. Too stupid. Just a note for all of our safety. I hope my son’s never turn into this.”
My observation is not the same. It is women who are complaining men won’t make a commitment. On TV; in magazines; on the Web, to their pastors and others.
And, on the manosphere men are saying, nevermore.
I have said this plainly, and not long ago.
Pastors; like Mark Driscoll, but almost all of them; Dr. Phil; Focus on the Family, and many more, are all saying the same thing. It is men who are not manning up and will not marry. And, it is women who are telling them that, not men.
So, I cannot buy a personal theory that contradicts the clear cut evidence to the contrary.
The reason you are only seeing women complain about the lack of male commitment is because men don’t complain. No one would listen anyway.
The women in their late teens to early 20s through about 27 are not interested in a binding relationship; she might miss out on the hot billionaire rock band drummer or exciting Harley guy. So when men show any sign of looking for a relationship they are dumped immediately or never given a chance in the first place. Men don’t write articles complaining about this, they just go on about their business. However, a portion decide the game is rigged and drop out. The women, at that point, don’t care about these drop outs. Then when the women decide it is time to stop having fun and settle for the beta they can hate and can abuse for cash and prizes they find that there are fewer men willing to take on the role. The Alphas are screwing younger hotter women, and the betas are more hesitant to commit or are completely off the market. The women then complain. These complaints always come from a woman over 30, never from a 23 year old woman in her prime.
So, I think both things can be true; any woman in the US could be married if she wasn’t too picky (while she is young), and men are not committing to marriage (when she is older). This trend will accelerate as the current cohort of young carouselers reaches the age where they think they are entitled to the man of their choice. Their estimation of their ability to marry at that point is based on how earlier cohorts were able to marry. That basis is providing false security as the numbers of women taking this strategy are much larger in recent cohorts than in past cohorts. Their odds will not be as good as they were for women in the past.
Pingback: Father Knows Best: First June Weekend Edition | Patriactionary
Thanks for that link to a truly pathetic mangina. I agree with several upthread posters it reads like a sad, pathetic, Omega trying to White Knight some female attention.
On Catholic Forums: I could not even begin to read that site. The femocentricity is not implicit but overt and in your face. I think most of these “Catholic” women are divorced (or annulled) and the advice they give is amazingly bad.
@ Lyn: “Whenever writers play the “Man Always Bad – Woman Always Good” card now, the comments sections are positively flooded with red pills… unless the comments are disabled or the mods screen them out. This phenomenon is not limited to the androsphere, but appears everywhere it is not specifically and deliberately disallowed – even on blue-pill and libtard websites.”
Hurrah! The pendulum changes direction just in time. I am not so sanguine but it is some hope at least.
“@Rollo, “The offensiveness doesn’t come from the notion that men would need to perform in order to get sex”
Supposedly, according to what women say, that IS what they find offensive. Women are deeply offended (shocked, shocked I tell you) to hear that they could be manipulated e.g. through Game.”
THIS! “Game” only works on sloooots don’t you know, not on “real” women. HAHAHAHAHAAH! OK, let me wipe away a tear after that. So we should just be ourselves and, as Rollo points out time and time again, wait for the women to pick us in order to maximize their hypergamy. How about I suggest another alternative…..
@Lyn: “But to allow single women who bear bastards by choice to legally plunder the public treasury is just nuts. Not only does it create perverse incentives, but it gives single women the rights of wives, and mostly-male taxpayers the obligations of husbands without giving those men the rights of husbands or the women the responsibilities of wives.”
Husbands have rights? Could you explicate them please because I have no idea what they might be.
BPP asks, “What rights do husbands have.”
Husbands have the right to the following three things from their wives:
1 ) Respect
2) Submission
3) Sexual access
But the state and the church have declared those rights to be unenforceable at best, abusive as a matter of custom, and felonious at worst. But just because the rights are unenforceable does not negate their existence.
Likewise, wives have the right to the following from their husbands:
1) Love
2) Sexual access
In both cases, the wife is the arbiter and the state her enforcer, while churchians are her support group.
Oh gosh, I suppose I’m just going to have to say it. He had me right after “my man problem”.
All I want to do now is bend him over my knee and spank him for being so rude and horrid.
Spank him very hard, and a lot.
I do so hope he’s feeling slightly anxious now …
Lyn87, you should elaborate what you consider covered by that “love” as it can mean many different things to different people, especially women. Some may feel a man doesn’t love her if he will not do everything she wants, the way she wants.
Pingback: Owed Sex |
Well, Tam, you remember the traditional difference in Scotsmen’s and Welshmen’s tastes in ONSs… 😀
All I want to do now is bend him over my knee and spank him for being so rude and horrid.
Spank him very hard, and a lot.
I do so hope he’s feeling slightly anxious now …
I’m sure, Tam, that he’s feeling aroused. The chance to get spanked by a real man is probably something he has been looking forward to and fantasizing about all his life.
A minor point, but I would argue that the traditional wife also has a right to financial support, as far as the husband is reasonably able to provide.
Knowing your style, I suspect that this is wrapped up in bullet one, for you; but I think it ought to be clearly and separately emphasized, as modern feminists often use it as a plank in their own platform to undermine traditional marriage.
Driscoll is apparently a loon:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2014/06/24/mars-hill-churchs-demon-trials-mental-illness-considered-sign-of-demonic-involvement-along-with-pedophilia-and-habitual-lying/
Who sent him to preach? No one.
What licensure exam did he pass? None.
What confessional standards does he hold to? None.
Who hold him to standards of faith and practice? No one.
His ‘demon trials’ bolster the argument that his ‘man up’ campaign is another tool to control his congregation.