Ying Ma bemoans the loss of chivalry in Men Who Don’t Pay (H/T Instapundit):
We live in a society where lots of men do not pay. Not only do they fail to pay for the women with whom they go on a date, they increasingly do not even pay for themselves.
The men afflicted with this syndrome tend to be young, and are usually under the age of forty. Those who suffer most severely tend to be products of the nation’s top universities or respectable urban workplaces—where political correctness and leftwing ideology regularly trample over concepts such as chivalry and honor. At these institutions, the worst thing that could happen is to be perceived as racist, sexist or homophobic. Being a weasel that does not pay is not considered a source of embarrassment.
Ma’s critique of modern men is the conservative critique, reinforced by the page title:
Leftist Ideology Makes Men Cheap and Go Dutch
Ma no doubt wants to know why this is happening. The reason of course is simple, as I explained in Why men are withdrawing from courtship. Women are greatly extending the period they expect to be courted, very often expecting to be courted for decades. As women have started dating for sex instead of marriage, men have adjusted their courtship strategies in response. At some level Ma understands this, because her complaint is that men want to have sex with women without buying dinner first:
…on his date, he shelled out only $2.50 for an ice cream cone for the lady and then quickly got to the point: to secure what young men usually want from women.
Pretending that buying a woman dinner to have sex with her is “traditional” or “manly” is absurd, but Ma doesn’t seem to notice.
All of this left me curious whether Ma understood the current sexual marketplace. Perhaps she married young under different cultural customs. She has a personal blog, and I thought the about page would let me know how long she has been married. However there is no reference to a husband in her about page. This doesn’t mean she isn’t married, but if she is it isn’t something she notes about herself on her own blog. In fact, she goes to surprising lengths to avoid giving away her marital status. Her entire about page is written in the third person, and she repeatedly refers to herself using the feminist title “Ms.”
Ms. Ma is a policy advisor at the Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank, and a columnist for The Wall Street Journal‘s China blog.
Ms. Ma has previously served as a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University, a premier conservative think tank; practiced law at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, a leading global law firm headquartered in New York; managed corporate communications at Sina.com, the first Mainland China-based Internet company to list on the Nasdaq Stock Market; and served on the first professional staff of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a congressional commission established to examine the security implications of America’s economic relationship with China
Weak men are screwing Ms. Ma’s feminism up. Won’t someone come to her aid?
Pingback: Ms. Chivalry | Manosphere.com
Pingback: Ms. Chivalry | Neoreactive
All this really shows is how cheap women can be today. For $2.50 spent on an ice cream cone, the guy probably slept with her that night. So… she evaluated her sexual worth there as the equivalent of an ice cream cone. I challenge anyone to find even the skankiest hooker who’d sell herself for that price.
I have been with my husband for almost 20 years and in our dating days I always paid half. You can’t have it both ways– if you want to be a “strong, independent woman” then you have to be willing to pay your share. I always worked so I had no excuse to be cheap. I think it was a good precedent actually. My husband and I have never really argued over money and I think it’s because we both have always known the value of a dollar.
Ms. Ma is a policy advisor at the Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank, and a columnist for The Wall Street Journal‘s China blog.
Ms. Ma has previously served as a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University,
In other words, a neocon. No wonder she doesn’t have a clue.
As to her marital status, we can toss a coin as to whether she is or isn’t. If she is, we can make a pretty good composite guess as to what kind of “man” would put a ring on that: gelded, lacking in self-respect, of lower socio-economic and/or educational status than she is (probably her “kitchen bitch”), and quite probably cuckholded as well. In other words, the kind of “man” who marries either a feminist or a conservative/neocon (not that there’s any difference).
Is it time to seperate?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=952476
Abstinence or what? if not open to life.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=952483
Romance vs. Practicality in Marriage
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=952516
Skewered!
This was my favorite part from the article.
So while it’s reprehensible that men have abandoned honor, it’s perfectly reasonable that women abandon gratitude.
TFH: “She is such an expert in free markets that she is baffled by the adaptations of men to the sexual marketplace, and she responds by demanding they not adapt to market forces.”
Conservatives understand market principles as it applies to economies. But they don’t think market principles should apply to human relations. Those should be governed by Christian principles (e.g., honesty, chastity, fidelity, self-sacrifice).
That human relations are not governed by Christian principles is true, but unfortunate.
Remember, it is all relative. Women don’t expect a man to “pay” for sex if the man in question is very attractive and women feel validated and honoured to be desired by him. On the other hand….. it is a bit cheeky for a undesirable man to see attractive men get sex without paying, and expect the same. Pretty much like how older, less attractive women expect men to fall over themselves coutring them when they see younger, more attractive women get this treatment.
where political correctness and leftwing ideology regularly trample over concepts such as chivalry and honor.
Well… yeah. They are mutually exclusive. Theres no room for traditionally masculine concepts such as chivalry and honor in a world of “equality”.
Leftist Ideology Makes Men Cheap and Go Dutch
The horror….. the horror….
Of course, leftwing ideology is also destroying our social fabric and cratering our demographics, but this new trend of men cheaping out on women during dates is particularly concerning…
No matter how highly credentialed/accomplished and independently wealthy a woman is, she still longs for a man better than her who will commit his resources to her.
Fascinating.
Now, will one of you bitter, dishonorable losers take a few hours out of your crappy lives of bullying strong woman and buy this Ms. dinner?!??
Pleeeeeease?!!!!?
A woman is either MISS or MRS, there is no woman MS. That’s a feminist.
I really wish I could but I have this problem with immaturity and thus, fortunately for her, am unfit to socialise with such womanhood. I wish her luck in finding Mr Right Now.
TFH is a White-Knight. Why bother paying anything. I regret to say that in my experience women either want to or they don’t and it is not so much the expence as the share waste of time which allows them to change their mind (for which most have achieved the Olympic Qualifying Standard).
That Ms Ma has sure had a lot of jobs for someone so young and so pretty ;). Was she pushed or is she something being passed around? I don’t suffer from Yellow-Fever.
Don’t date, pull pussy right out of the club.
I think PJ Media needs to introduce Ms Ying Ma to Dr Helen Smith for a reality check.
Fish Seeking Bicycle. Must be top-of-the-line model, gold plating preferred.
It’s really the tension inherent in conservatism between the libertarian approach to markets and finances and the conservative approach to sexual relations in particular. It’s a hash, honestly, but because of the particularities of the way the conservative movement has developed in the past several decades in the US (as a pragmatic coalition between libertarians and social conservatives), these very different ideas get hashed together and associated with each other, which renders a fairly contradictory set of principles. One is required to do mental gymnastics in worldview depending on whether one is in the “financial/market” sphere, or in the “personal/sexual” sphere — which feels natural to many American conservatives because these ideas have been hashed together for decades now in order to solidify the political coalition, but when you step back and look at it, it’s a rather obvious hash.
This is one reason why I think many (most?) American conservatives are quite happy to embrace the life script for their kids while still at least paying lip service to conservative sexual/personal values. The former are in the more libertarian “market/finance” sphere, and so it makes sense to embrace maximal freedom and competitiveness for all of their kids in that sphere, regardless of their sex. It’s not the only reason, but it’s a reason why it isn’t perceived by them as being contradictory with their worldview — because that worldview amounts to a combination of freedom and competitiveness in the work/market/financial sphere (which includes education and jobs) and conservatism in the personal/sexual sphere. In e context of female children, that means pushing them to get highly educated and be very competitive in the former sphere, yet emphasizing marriage and children in the latter sphere. Again, this isn’t seen as being contradictory, precisely because of the hash between libertarianism and conservatism that runs through contemporary American conservatism to begin with.
‘We live in a society where lots of men do not pay. Not only do they fail to pay for the women with whom they go on a date, they increasingly do not even pay for themselves.’
A few things:
1) We also live in a society where women give their bodies away to strange men for almost nothing. This is one of those nasty side effects of sexual liberation. Everybody becomes lazy.
2) A man paying for a date doesn’t show much importance to a woman when it comes to a date. I personally pay for dates if I invite them but I can tell you the ability to buy things isn’t what keeps women around (unless she’s a golddigger).
3) If a woman is only concerned with how much money a man has…she is only seeking a utility. Much like a man who only wants a woman for sex…both run off of selfishness. I would suggest both sexes avoid this segment of the population when it comes to the relationship game.
Men used to pay for practical reasons: 1) women had little money, b) men were the breadwinner in marriage and were sending that signal to a prospective spouse. That ship has sailed. Ma neds to wake up to the times. Dalrock hit the nail on the head.
Liberal, conservative, libertarian…so what? The old way, were a woman didn’t work and was supported by a man IS OVER. At least within the dating generation. How many traditinal men are left, 15%? These vanishing traditional men are going to find themselves draped with desperate women as more and more women wake up, smell the cultural coffee, and don’t like it. Unfortunately, like the author of the article, they won’t have the homemaking skills anymore to offer a potential husband a tradtional wife and mother. Working women do have two advantages in the dating market to land a man: to provide money and sex. She better get used to it.
‘…on his date, he shelled out only $2.50 for an ice cream cone for the lady and then quickly got to the point: to secure what young men usually want from women.’
And did said woman say ‘no’. Did said woman never see this guy again? Did this woman inform him she is saving herself for marriage? If a woman decides to be with a man like this, she also reveals something about herself.
Feminism seems to turn women into irresponsible children who can’t make good decisions.
So now they’re “ladies” again? Weren’t we told that “lady” is a condescending patriarchal term, used by men to control female behavior? Funny to think it might make a comeback as a way for women to try to control the behavior of men who stopped caring whether they act like ladies.
I think a lot of women take it as a sign of lack of interest when a man who is capable of paying (they are not both students, let’s say) doesn’t pay. I understand why men get cynical and want to stop paying. But I think there is a bit of game theory involved here; there is no single most optimal strategy. If a man has a strong hunch that the woman is buzzed up about him (instead of just looking for free entertainment) and he is also interested in her as long-term prospect, he should probably pay for the first few dates to keep the attraction building on both sides. A woman who is genuinely interested in a man will pretty typically start offering to split things after a few dates (2-3).
I know a lot is broken about modern society, but people do still fall in love and get married and have decent marriages. Excessive cynicism can be self-sabotaging.
@ 0644AM Novaseeker explains in his usual clear way the world that many of us are trying to remove ourselves from via “the red pill.” (The libertarian/conservative hash)
It is painful, but good medicine.
Also relevant, http://courtshippledge.com/2014/02/an-attempt-to-decorate-a-corpse/
and
http://courtshippledge.com/2014/03/the-final-logical-conclusion-of-dating-is-finally-upon-us/
I’ve got to say that this is one of the funniest posts I’ve read.
Typical. Women want all of the benefits of whatever their idea of chivalry is but none of the responsibilities. They want to have a free dinner and movie but keep that gravy train going for years with the occasional sexual act with their partner.
But then they demand equality.
“many (most?) American conservatives are quite happy to embrace the life script for their kids while still at least paying lip service to conservative sexual/personal values.”
Agreed that the hash you spoke of has “married” (heh) a lot of old school paleocon ideas with “new school” neocon ideas. But one of those “new school” ideas is that current sexual mores can be, and should be, somehow incorporated into today’s understanding of “conservatism”. And today’s understanding of popular, sociopolitical and economic conservatism, is fiscal conservatism married with a strain of “don’t tread on me” “molon labe” libertarianism/personal responsibility. And part of that “don’t tread on me” is sexual freedom.
Let’s face it: the nice Catholic boys want to have sex. The “nice” Catholic girls want sex. The Duggar girls want sex. The men who are marrying the Duggar girls want sex. The girl who goes to the charismatic fundie hand-lifter church wants sex. So do the men who attend church with her. But we exhort them not to have sex until “there’s love” or “there’s marriage”.
So what happens is this sort of “multiple personality” disorder among conservatives. And Ms Ma and Michelle Fields are expressing it. On one hand, we are sexually free. On the other hand, we want, we NEED, to preserve some vestige of the “old order”. And men (not women) must bear that cost. (If women were going to bear that cost, they would be choosing and marrying men earlier. They’d be making commitments to said men.)
Because I can tell you right now — these single, unmarried neocon women are having sex with attractive men who ask them on dates. And they don’t require marriage or heavy commitment. They do, however, want a token vestige of that “commitment”, and that is “paying for the first date”. That is the source of the demand for token chivalrous gestures from men.
And this: ” Pretending that buying a woman dinner to have sex with her is “traditional” or “manly” is absurd, but Ma doesn’t seem to notice.”
Is exactly right.” But more to the point, what these women are saying essentially is:
“If you buy me dinner on the first date, then I will feel better about having sex with you later. Or more to the point, I’ll feel better about myself when I have sex with you, because I will have first displayed my “conservative” bona fides. If I require at least SOME investment from you before I have to “pay”, then I will have demonstrated, at least to myself, my commitment to conservative principles. First you pay, then if I decide you are attractive enough and/or good enough, then maybe I will “pay”.
“I’m not a slut. I at least require a guy to buy me dinner before I have sex with him. My insistence that a man go through the chivalrous motions before we have sex makes me a conservative, principled, strong, independent woman.”
A hilarious comment in the discussion there.
As I noted in reply: Men are Johns if they expect sex after paying for a date. Women are floozies if they don’t expect the man to pay before sex.
The men afflicted with this syndrome tend to be young, and are usually under the age of forty. Those who suffer most severely….
Awwww, isn’t it sweet that Ma cares about the suffering of us menz?
I’ve noticed that many of the female talking heads on the Fox News shows appear to be late 20s to mid 30s, and unmarried. Few of them are married and have children.
I don’t mean the anchors — I mean the “Republican strategists” and the think tank employees. The female of this type are selected to be on the Sunday talk shows or on the prime time evening shout fests not so much for what they know, but for the bangable factor. They are all attractive women in their 20s and 30s, selected to jack up the ratings because the men who watch these shows want to see and hear bangable conservative women saying conservative things. Ann Coulter has constructed an entire career on this principle.
Good observations from Novaseeker and RedPillLatecomer. Market economies are human relations too, and Christians should not expect an exemption to act amorally in that sphere while demanding moral behavior in personal relations. But neither should they be so naive in either sphere as to expect others to act morally, until others have already demonstrated a personal history of doing so.
Myrealitie:
“If a man has a strong hunch that the woman is buzzed up about him (instead of just looking for free entertainment) and he is also interested in her as long-term prospect, he should probably pay for the first few dates to keep the attraction building on both sides.”
You’re presuming facts that haven’t had time to be established. That ‘strong hunch’ that this one is a long-term prospect cannot, at the time of the first couple of dates, be rooted in much more than biological attraction — so it’s hard for the man to filter out those women who are just looking for free entertainment, except by refusing to provide it (yet).
“I think a lot of women take it as a sign of lack of interest when a man who is capable of paying … doesn’t pay.”
Precisely. So when the woman is interested, his apparent disinterest signals to her that he is of higher status and she must work harder to attract him. This is how and why assholes succeed where good men fail.
“If a man has a strong hunch that the woman is buzzed up about him (instead of just looking for free entertainment) and he is also interested in her as long-term prospect, he should probably pay for the first few dates to keep the attraction building on both sides. A woman who is genuinely interested in a man will pretty typically start offering to split things after a few dates (2-3).”
What Game-aware men are finding out is, if a woman is truly ‘buzzed up’ about him, she won’t care if he spends a bunch of money or not. “You can’t negotiate desire.” – H/T Rollo
“Our mother was right: “All you owe a gentleman for taking you out for the evening is the pleasure of your company.”
Any man who sees it another way, as paying for sex, isn’t a date, but a john. A man who sees all women as prostitutes.”
Somehow I doubt that men would act like johns if the women wouldn’t act like prostitutes. Because a woman who expects to be given a costly meal before putting out is a prostitute.
@ TFH
With my fling, she provided the resources. Gave me a place to stay for a week and smuggled me food from the cafeteria, courtesy of her dad paying for her room and board. I bought her a snickers bar, I think. Snickers, for the win.
@ Aesthetic
If the man has higher sexual value than the woman, then it’s reasonable that she would pay for his services. Current market conditions are artificially loaded to decrease men’s value across the board by a point or two (out of 10).
Reading that entire article….wow. Just amazing.
“Closing your eyes…is worse than being blind.” – Johnny Adams
@Craig – One of the best ways to get into a situation on a first or 2nd date in which the woman is sufficiently interested in a man is for the man to benefit from pre-selection. He can do this by getting a good reputation among a group of people that includes a woman he is interested in dating.
As an example, I had a recent colleague describe to me that she met her fiance in NYC of all places when she noticed him at a volunteer organization that she had joined upon moving to the city. She told me that she noticed that he seemed to know and be liked by everyone in the organization, and since she needed to make new friends, she made sure to meet him. Either she was not self-aware or was concealing that what she really meant was: “I was impressed by him and his reputation.” She, by the way, is 24, very very pretty, sweet, and hard working. She is from Kentucky. Anyone here on this board would be happy to marry a woman like her. And I met her fiance. To be quite frank he struck me as awkward, not very good looking, and a bit of a dope. But he got that pre-selection thing working for him…
Honestly, even if you can manipulate a woman into thinking she is “below” you by, say, not paying for her date, it’s not really a great starting point for creating a relationship. Much better to have the girl admire you a priori. Then you can put her on a cloud by doing nice things for her instead of turning her off.
@PokeSalad – Yes, I agree with your point, but she might start getting defensive, playing games, and, as I said above, it doesn’t set the stage for a harmonious interaction, even if she is very attracted. If you are just looking to have sex, maybe this is fine for you.
As I’ve mentioned in the past, I am not religious, but I still like aspects of @Scott’s courtship program for the reasons I’m stating here.
I also found it funny on the video TFH linked to, the consistent reference to “courting” by the women commentators.
These women don’t want “courtship”. If they did, they’d be seriously considering men for commitment and marriage. And they aren’t courting. They are engaging in the modern SMP. They go on dates with men who ask them. They have sex with attractive men outside marriage. They select their own partners, select the men they want to date and have sex with, and have sex with them outside marriage. They cultivate relationships of varying duration and intensity and seriousness with some of the men, usually in serial fashion, and have sexual relationships with these men in ways that resemble marriage in terms of exclusivity and sexual expression. (This is NOT judgment; it’s an accurate description of what they’re doing.)
What they want is to slap the “courting” label on modern dating, which essentially ALL women engage in, regardless of ideology or worldview. If they call what they do “courting”, they can then say they are “conservative” and “not slutty” and “have standards and principles”.
As I noted in reply: Men are Johns if they expect sex after paying for a date. Women are floozies if they don’t expect the man to pay before sex.
You left out–I’m guessing on purpose–the third leg of the stool. What does that make women who DO willingly put out, so long as he pays for dinner?
But since no one at that site will complete the logic chain herself, it might have been better to be less subtle.
Nova, I think the problem is deeper—i.e., worse—than you suggest. That is, the contradiction that you see between the two strands of conservatism is more apparent than real.
Once modernity makes the satisfaction of bodily desires and earthly wants the highest aim of life and politics, then the free market is just the most efficient means to satisfy those ends. It’s vastly superior at producing material goods in both quantity and quality. Modern conservatism fetishizes the market as an end or good in itself but its philosophic forebears see clearly that it’s just a means.
When it comes to “relationships,” they fall into this same category: what does the flesh want? There is no limiting principle beyond “consent” (to which one must apply a few caveats, such as age and perhaps infliction of grave bodily damage). Certainly there is no teleological limiting principle, whether understood religiously or philosophically.
But the conservative sort of “knows” that “going too far” in the pleasures of the flesh will undermine the material progress and plenty that modern life otherwise strives for. Hence they will say they are for marriage and a certain amount of restraint or moderation, but not for the sake of the soul or the good life so much as so not to undermine the “outcomes” which modernity takes as its end. It’s all quite compatible at the base level.
This is one reason why modern fathers are quite OK with slutty daughters (not that they want to know the details): because so long as she doesn’t undermine her career, or force the family to face the embarrassment of “loss of caste” (which is what the UMC fears above all), then it’s OK. If the carousel is now necessary to the life script of a stable UMC marriage, income, and status, then the carousel will be tolerated, or even justified, since the whole purpose of life is earthly pleasure anyway. The natural misgivings every father has about a slutty daughter are simply suppressed because men completely lack any intellectual framework to justify to themselves why those misgivings might actually be rational and noble.
“Honestly, even if you can manipulate a woman into thinking she is “below” you by, say, not paying for her date, it’s not really a great starting point for creating a relationship.”
You did see the point that this tactic works for assholes, didn’t you? It works for them on the same principle as the old WC Fields joke: you can’t cheat an honest (wo)man.
The opposite (and equally dishonest) tactic is for women to manipulate men into thinking they must ‘win’ her, by dating only so long as champagne and lobster are forthcoming. To expand on the real-estate analogy some other commenters here have used recently, the modern dating expectation that a man will pay for expensive dates up front is like a homebuying market in which prospective buyers are expected to pay some token amount of earnest money in order to find out if the house is even listed.
“All you owe a gentleman for taking you out for the evening is the pleasure of your company.”
That might be worth the price of an evening out — IF her company was indeed a pleasure.
For her company to be a pleasure, she would need to be attractive — slender! — personable, friendly, polite, gracious, witty, and have her attention focused exclusively on the man during the date. No wandering eye, no talking about former boyfriends, no constant checking her cell phone.
Being in the company of such a woman — a true lady — is indeed worth the price of an evening out.
Unfortunately, many women seeking dates are overweight, slovenly, laden with kids, whiny, angry, complaining, and feel entitled. I was on one date where the woman spent fully half the time with her nose in her cell phone. She acknowledged she couldn’t resist checking her cell phone constantly all day long. She didn’t apologize for it, she just acknowledged it and continued doing it.
All girls grow into women. Not all become ladies. Yet every drunken skank on a Girls Gone Wild video demands to be called a lady — and men comply — so the term has lost its true meaning.
No matter how highly credentialed/accomplished and independently wealthy a woman is, she still longs for a man better than her who will commit his resources to her.
What modern women poisoned by a lifetime of indoctrination in feminine-primary ideology (i.e., nearly ALL western women) utterly fail to grasp is the simple reality that once they reach a certain maximum level of economic achievement, becoming the embodiment of the “strong and independent woman” that society says should be their life’s sole goal, there are no “men better than [they are]” from whom to extract resources. Once she becomes “the lead bitch [zoologically speaking] of the pack,” she has replaced that hypothetical man with maximum power and resources with herself.
Yes, there are alpha males in her social and professional peer group once she reaches this apex, but precious few will be sexually attracted to her. Those men of this group who are married will generally be married to women who are a step or two below them on the socio-economic class ladder or to women who are their class equals, but who are not StrongEmpoweredWomen[TM]. Few “alpha” men, if any, feel anything but discomfort and/or revulsion when confronted with what is essentially a man masquerading in a female body. In fact, most beta provider mules feel the same way.
Perhaps I’d best summarize this by repeating generic advice that I’ve put out in the past.
Ladies, men are not women and women are not men. Those traits that you find attractive in men (assertiveness, toughness, confidence, presence, the ability and willingness to lead) are NOT traits that men in general find attractive in women. Indeed, exactly the opposite is true. Ladies, when you brag about career achievements to a man, here is what he is hearing you say: “See how big MY dick is? Now let’s see yours! Bet you can’t top THAT!”
It’s definitely not a winning strategy. A man already hears enough of this from other men, every day of his life for most of his day. Ask yourselves honestly why you think he would want to be confronted with that on his own time or why if, heaven forbid, he decides he wants to marry, why he would pick one of you who thinks she’s better “endowed” then he is and then agree to be her servant mule provider even though she claims to be “strong and independent.” “Real” men of the kind that these “strong and independent” women’s biological hardwiring causes them to long for (whether they admit it to themselves or not) aren’t wired that way.
So, “ladies,” you either want a man in your life who wants a REAL woman in his, thus requiring a personality transplant on your part if you hope to be a contender, or you want to be an alpha male with a vagina. It’s either or; you get the slice of cake OR the fork with which to chow down. Not both. All the ideological window dressing in the world won’t change that biological fact.
The sentiments expressed in Ms. Ma’s article in the OP are why Game 101 advice to men is for man to make sure a woman is sexually interested in him before he starts spending money on her. He needs to make sure she is sexually attracted to him FIRST, and THEN he will invest resources.
Formerly, a man knew a woman was sexually interested if she agreed to “court” a man. Then it was that she would agree to be alone with him. Now, in modern society, the only way a man can know if a woman is sexually attracted to him is for him to make the sexual advance and successfully have sex with her. And even that isn’t a guarantee. But one thing I can say is that a man spending money on a woman, purchasing an expensive meal for her, is not going to generate tingles. Tingles are either there or they are not there; and him picking up the tab for lobster tail is not going to create tingles if they’re not there.
chivalry was summarily executed by feminists, their courts, and their schills that make it very hard for me to believe that my interests mean a DAMNED thing; It’s been very clearly pointed out that in your world, it’s pretty much all about you, your feelings, your insecurities, and YOUR children.
No, I was there, I placed the seeds, but never mind that; you don’t share very well, or even reciprocate.
pound that sand, lady.
” Much better to have the girl admire you a priori. Then you can put her on a cloud by doing nice things for her instead of turning her off. “ a.k.a. “What have you done for me lately?”.
Like ASDG says, if she “admires” (hamsterlate: lusts after) you sufficiently, then a bag of Skittles is probably overcommitment on the man’s part. Paying for a near-stranger’s din-dins is a huge supplication tell, and DLV. Betabetabeta.
Ain’t it peculiar that all the wimminz regardless of political bent insist, I say insist on free dinners upfront and zero reciprocity.
Almost like they were programmed or something? … hmmm.
@THF 10:57 PM
Precisely why women should not be allowed to vote. The desire for wealth transfer is part of their nature.
“I’m not a slut. I at least require a guy to buy me dinner before I have sex with him. My insistence that a man go through the chivalrous motions before we have sex makes me a conservative, principled, strong, independent woman.”
Heh…remember when women used to not give it away until they were married. Now all it takes is one meal.
And I get there’s some guys out there who only want sex because women complain about them all the time. But women do have the capability of saying no and never seeing that guy again.
The reason why some guys only want sex is because sex is given to them very easily. And by easily I mean it’s given out at anytime before marriage. A lot of that is placed on the woman’s responsibility.
@Stryker, precisely. Men have traditionally found their value in what they can DO, women have traditionally (and I might argue biologically) found their value in the resources expended upon them. Give them the vote and watch Tocqueville’s axioms about “Democracy in America” played out in short order. Instead of working for their feelings of self worth they can simply vote for it. Hence cometh The Life of Julia.
@Earl –
Serious question…are you married? Celibate? I am just trying to figure out how you manage being devout and chaste.
If they want chivalry and courtship. They must be young and a virgin; and they must be seriously considering marriage and not wasting the man’s time or money. Simple. If they are not all of the above, they don’t deserve anything from a man.
I am not married…so I’m celibate. The simplest answer I can give you as to how I manage is to have a good prayer life and involvement in the Church. Weightlifting, reading, and keeping busy also takes some of that stress off too.
However it isn’t easy and I have my weaknesses. I would like to be married in part to be relieved of this…but it could be my cross.
@Earl –
Thank you for replying and good luck. I don’t know how many other commentators are in your position, but I would imagine that it must be difficult.
Phillyastro, it’s not so difficult once one becomes aware of the consequences of a) living in a culture in which accusation is conviction; b) tradcon and churchian men are quick to condemn any man who experiences SMP misfortune, while promoting their own subordination to their Fair Bride as some sort of superior virtue; and c) the SIWs so closely resemble Ya Ming (i.e., they’re just using the sexual aspect as barter for marriage, resources, and social status).
Ya Ming’s is not a complicated case: she played musical chairs too long. This SMP cliche is here varnished with supposed social insights in the soul of the liberal state. Self-described, self-obsessed ‘conservative intellectuals’ (who would deny their feminist entitlement outlook) are feminism’s best friends. Just as the moral narcissism of a white man who says, “Why some of my best friends are black!” proves, for leftists, that racism is endemic.
Or more to the point, I’ll feel better about myself when I have sex with you, because I will have first displayed my “conservative” bona fides. If I require at least SOME investment from you before I have to “pay”, then I will have demonstrated, at least to myself, my commitment to conservative principles.
I think that’s another manifestation of how what “conservative” means changes in a society that is on a constant drift in the current direction. So while 30 years ago, a “conservative” girl wouldn’t sleep before she was going steady, and some wouldn’t until they were married, today a conservative girl won’t sleep until a guy at least pays for dinner, and ten years from now a conservative girl who was picked up by a guy in a bar will explain that she doesn’t swallow because she’s an old fashioned conservative girl. As things move further in the current direction, what is “conservative” moves right along with it.
As things move further in the current direction, what is “conservative” moves right along with it.
The Overton window of mate selection.
My dating experience of the currently defined “conservative” women in WashDC: they care more about money (where you live, what you drive), and they have better lingerie.
@BuenaVista –
Since you do know the quality of the DC lingerie, I assume you aren’t following the same path as Earl.
Phillyastro: I am not the subject of this thread. Speculate on others’ lives if you must.
“Yes, I agree with your point, but she might start getting defensive, playing games, and, as I said above, it doesn’t set the stage for a harmonious interaction, even if she is very attracted.”
Again, its all up to the guy to ‘set the stage’ and bear all risks and responsibilities of the interaction. Is this 1955? Feminism has decided that women had no obligations in this game, yet it still demands the historical obligations of men. Defensive? Playing games? Bye.
As Earl points out, in the olden times, women would hold out for a lifetime’s commitment, showing the value of what they possessed…..now, they are DTF for a decent meal or ice-cream cone. The funniest part is, men (as a whole) didn’t demand this of women in general…women (in general) allowed feminists to inflict it upon themselves.
lzozoolzloz
“she doesn’t swallow because she’s an old fashioned conservative girl.”
she swallows as long as you pay for da EXPENSIVE ice creamslzozozlzoz, as that is what MS. MA is teacings hersz to doz in da name of CONSERVATIVISMZ WILLIAM F BUCKLEYZ!!! LZOZZzlzl zl zllzoz
@Buenavista –
No one is speculating on your life. You entered the conversation. Have a good day.
Shakespeare understood women:
Let me not think on’t–Frailty, thy name is woman!–
Hamlet notes how quick his mother was to move on to the next guy–a Stratfordian cock carousel rider of sorts:
That it should come to this!
But two months dead: nay, not so much, not two:
So excellent a king; that was, to this,
Hyperion to a satyr; so loving to my mother
That he might not beteem the winds of heaven
Visit her face too roughly. Heaven and earth!
Must I remember? why, she would hang on him,
As if increase of appetite had grown
By what it fed on: and yet, within a month–
Let me not think on’t–Frailty, thy name is woman!–
A little month, or ere those shoes were old
With which she follow’d my poor father’s body,
Like Niobe, all tears:–why she, even she–
O, God! a beast, that wants discourse of reason,
Would have mourn’d longer–married with my uncle,
My father’s brother, but no more like my father
Than I to Hercules: within a month:
Ere yet the salt of most unrighteous tears
Had left the flushing in her galled eyes,
She married. O, most wicked speed, to post
With such dexterity to incestuous sheets!
It is not nor it cannot come to good:
But break, my heart; for I must hold my tongue.
Hamlet notes the use of “makeup” and the irony that a woman would consider herself honest:
HAMLET
I have heard of your paintings too, well enough; God
has given you one face, and you make yourselves
another: you jig, you amble, and you lisp, and
nick-name God’s creatures, and make your wantonness
your ignorance. Go to, I’ll no more on’t; it hath
made me mad. I say, we will have no more marriages:
those that are married already, all but one, shall
live; the rest shall keep as they are. To a
nunnery, go.
HAMLET
Are you fair?
OPHELIA
What means your lordship?
HAMLET
That if you be honest and fair, your honesty should
admit no discourse to your beauty.
OPHELIA
Could beauty, my lord, have better commerce than
with honesty?
HAMLET
Ay, truly; for the power of beauty will sooner
transform honesty from what it is to a bawd than the
force of honesty can translate beauty into his
likeness: this was sometime a paradox, but now the
time gives it proof. I did love you once.
OPHELIA
Indeed, my lord, you made me believe so.
HAMLET
You should not have believed me; for virtue cannot
so inoculate our old stock but we shall relish of
it: I loved you not.
OPHELIA
I was the more deceived.
HAMLET
Get thee to a nunnery: why wouldst thou be a
breeder of sinners? I am myself indifferent honest;
but yet I could accuse me of such things that it
were better my mother had not borne me: I am very
proud, revengeful, ambitious, with more offences at
my beck than I have thoughts to put them in,
imagination to give them shape, or time to act them
in. What should such fellows as I do crawling
between earth and heaven? We are arrant knaves,
all; believe none of us. Go thy ways to a nunnery.
Where’s your father?
‘ a) living in a culture in which accusation is conviction; b) tradcon and churchian men are quick to condemn any man who experiences SMP misfortune, while promoting their own subordination to their Fair Bride as some sort of superior virtue; and c) the SIWs so closely resemble Ya Ming (i.e., they’re just using the sexual aspect as barter for marriage, resources, and social status).’
Yes despite some guys thinking that celibacy robs you of something…they never think how it is a great protection from such things like false accusations, deception, child support, and envy.
And as far as conservative goes…that’s just a term for politics. A conservative gal can be just as big a feminist when it comes to her sexuality as a liberal one. There’s been relevations of conservative women cheating on their husbands.
If she’s traditional or follows what God tells her, then she will be more likely to be on the up and up when it comes to sex and marriage.
Women, like Eve, chose the serpent over god.
The genius of cultural marxism is that it not only taught women that this was good, but it convinced conservatives and churchians that it was a good thing too.
You have to hand it to the cultural marxists — never before in the history of mankind have so many useful idiots done their bidding and then blamed the consequences on men.
Ya Ming is drawing so much attention today (here, in the abstract, perhaps; moreso at PJM, from a different cohort of men) because she is an archetype of the modern, urban professional woman. She checks multiple intersectionality boxes, and has benefited handsomely from a feminist, affirmative action culture. She earned all the merit badges.
But her womb has a sell-by date so it’s (manosphere truism alert) “Where have all the good Men gone?” time. Obviously, she’s just another victim, though her innovation is to claim that “liberal” men are her oppressors, not all men. She must be a delight to date, as her checklist screen would include such monumental questions as “Are you a truly good man who … always buys dinner?”
As Deti notes, while the class of this behavior may vary from the Hoover Institute to Nobu to a pentecostal church in North Dakota, the character of it is the same. Or, one might say, the lingerie changes but the song remains the same. Men, in her view, need to show up with their own harness already installed, asking, “Where, fair maiden, is your wagon, for I am so fortunate to pull it?”
Basically, feminism for this sort of superficial chick (she’s claiming superior economics training, doesn’t understand that dating markets are extremely efficient) expires as biology rears its head. Just as atheism often expires in foxholes.
The Overton window of mate selection.
Indeed.
‘Women, like Eve, chose the serpent over god.’
And men, like Adam, chose Eve over God. If you want the unnatural order, this is how it goes. And it’s an evil order…don’t let people convince you it is good.
There’s really no need to complain about men not paying. Simply don’t see those men again. They either aren’t that interested or they are looking for the kind of woman who doesn’t mind paying for dates. Either way I’d pass.
Earl: “Feminism seems to turn women into irresponsible children”
http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/22/nyt-on-the-zenith-of-trigger-warning-par
“The men afflicted with this syndrome tend to be young, and are usually under the age of forty.”
What a coincidence, the most tightfisted men are the ones who were sold into economic slavery before they were even born. First women take jobs from men, then Miss Career wants the man to spend money on her. This math doesn’t work, ladies.
Quit trying to get milk from the cash cow America been carving steaks out of since the 1930s. I’m too busy spending my tax money on illegal immigrants, welfare queens and your Obamacare to spend money on you.
Meanwhile, if you women don’t want to get married until you’re 30 then men won’t bother with expensive dates until you’re 30. See how it works? And by then, you’ll be infertile and damaged from riding the carousel… no longer worth full price.
What struck me was the powerful hamster she engaged to avoid blaming women for ANYTHING.
Men are not responding to changes in women! NO NO NO NO NONONNONOONNONONO! Men (not women) are infected with leftist ideology that steals their natural chivalry.
It is NOT that women are not deserving of chivalry.
It is NOT that women do not respond to chivalry with anything approaching sexual passion or even interest.
It is NOT women who have absorbed leftist equalitarian ideology and are largely unsuitable for acts of chivalry and utterly incapable of empathy or considering the pain their behavior causes.
It is not that women are so arrogant fresh from their 720 ‘likes’ on their 3rd selfie of the week and so addicted to their I-Phone that they are intolerable to be around.
It is NOT women who are a long long ways from creating a desire for chivalry in men.
NOONONNONONONONONONO!
MEN ARE THE PROBLEM.
I am only surprised she didn’t start decrying “kidults” and whining about the “Peter Pan Syndrome.” Yah, that’s it: Leftism makes men lazy kidult peter pan man boys. Leftism doesn’t have any affect on women. NONONONOONONONNOONONONONO!
Off topic, but Dalrock have you ever covered this: http://www.understandmen.com/
The topic of resources for “girl game” or how girls can be more successful to men has come up and this seems like the closest thing I’ve found that has gained some traction.I can’t decide where it falls on the spectrum and if it gets out of “build a better beta”, or if it is just a retread of “men from mars, women from venus”.
It is the first thing I’ve seen that tells women to stop certain behaviors that bring out the worst in men and learn to develop behavior that brings out the best in men. The lady behind it stumbled upon it and realized the unspoken teachers of your mother and culture led her astray and that she had to change, and now she is a “big fan of men”. It recognizes that instead of saying “all men are jerks”, that maybe women are to blame.
The downsides I’ve seen from the free material at least (maybe it is fleshed out) is:
1. To women; take care of yourself so you can take care of others. True in one sense but like all nuanced truth it can be exploited.
2. Women have a spiteful monster in their hind brain that takes control and you have to side step it instead of fed it. Game would again but the approach she suggests is to try gentleness and say “I’m sorry”; while Game would suggest enough dread to tame it. The gentle approach is how men would wish the problem could be fixed but ignores how respect works.
@GBFM: The Long March of the cultural Marxists through our institutions has been an amazing thing to watch- unabated even as the Berlin Wall fell and communism around the world collapsed. I think it will be a major topic of discussion by whoever are the successors to American dominance. Chicoms, Indians, Russians, Arabs, Persians. Lots of up and comers for the title.
AnonS-
The first time I ever hear Allison Armstrong was on the Dennis Prager show in Los Angeles. She always struck me as having at least the main part of her philosophy right.
I’ll use the example from my own life. About a year after my divorce, I was on speaking terms with my ex. We talked on the phone once in a while about a great many things. I think we were trying to figure what went wrong. In a moment of honesty, she said this to me: “When I was looking at you as a possible husband, I thought ‘that’s a good start.’ I shouldn’t have done that. I had a laundry list of things you needed to work on, and I would be the one to make sure you did. I had a clock ticking–a deadline under which you needed to improve, or else I would leave. I wouldn’t have articulated it that way then, but its the truth. That was presumptous and wrong of me.”
To which I responded: “That is strange. I looked at you and thought ‘stay exactly like that! Do not change at all. I can picture being married to you, exactly like that forever, and I will be happy.'”
Sure, there were things about her that drove me crazy, and I resevered the right to challenge her on those things. But I was resolved–if she never changed one bit I would stay with her to the end.
This fundamental difference is ubiquotous between men and women, and the therapy I have done with couples bears this out almost perfectly.
Allison Armstrong says “women look at men, and want them to become hairy women.”
By this she means, they want men to communicate like women, equivocate like women, emote like women, “share” like women, etc. (At least that’s what the culture tells them they want).
But she says this ultimately makes both unhappy in the end. Her approach seems to be to understand what makes men different, and go with it, appreciate it and respect it rather than try to change it.
I had not heard about her in a long time. I wonder how she would respond to “red-pill” stuff.
“There’s really no need to complain about men not paying. Simply don’t see those men again. They either aren’t that interested or they are looking for the kind of woman who doesn’t mind paying for dates. Either way I’d pass.”
….cue the “where have all the good men gone?” blogs……
Hmmmmmm.
Dunno if I agree with you or not Dalrock. Sure – women are dragging out the courtship process but that is a GOOD thing IMHO. This allows a man to really get to know a lady and if you spend a pile of cash on a courtship and find out the woman is not right for you…well, that is money well spent in my opinion.
There are a few things in life, boys, where money is no object: get the best rifle you can afford. Get the best education you can afford, and get the best WOMAN you can afford. If you discover you’ve made a costly mistake with a woman, cut your losses and run. If you’ve done things right and found the RIGHT woman – spend as much as you need on the things that count.
My beliefs about dating: Dating–in contrast to picking up, hooking up, getting a free place to stay plus free sex, getting her to pay for sex with you–is for exactly one thing: spending serious time with someone you want to be your wife and the mother of your children if she’s young enough to bear children. That’s it.
For that reason–because dating is actually serious–first dates should ALWAYS be cheap dates: a coffee, a drink, period. If your aim is strictly to get laid, you ought to be able to do it on a $2.50 ice cream cone–or less. And if your aim is just to get laid, and you can’t get laid for $2.50 (or get her to pay the $2.50), there’s something wrong with you. Those first dates should be spent getting educated about the kind of woman your “date” actually is. If she’s discontent with just a cup of coffee, you have already learned something important about her: she’s a gold-digger whose DNA you don’t want to be in your kids. The woman you date, conversely, should be learning something about you and what you’re after. She has a perfect right not to be interested in someone whose main aim with her is to have sex with her for $2.50.
After those first few dates, when the couple has decided they want to spend more time with each other–that is, that they’re serious about each other–dating should ALWAYS be reciprocal. That doesn’t mean going Dutch treat, which is highly unromantic, but it does mean that the treats should be alternated to the best extent that the couple’s finances permit. He’s an investment banker who takes you to a posh restaurant? Cook him the best steak and frites he’s ever tasted the next time around. Or if you’re making big money and he’s not, you can splurge for him and he can cook for you. If he takes you to a movie, you buy the burgers. In this way the parties demonstrate their commitment to each other and also their loyalty, honesty and sense of fairness: the moral virtues that will make them good spouses. They also learn what it’s like to be in that reciprocal long-term relationship called marriage.
Of course if you main goal is free sex–or, if you’re a gal, sex to paid for with expensive things, you’re not dating. You’re doing something else.
Wow, they’re letting us pay for the pen knife to cut our balls off. How considerate!
Here’s a tip, Modern women deserve perhaps some slop in a dog dish. I’ll pay for the food for Traditional women only.
Mizz Ma is being disgraceful and she knows it. How much exactly should men pay for feminists? You’ve already had a pound of flesh from each of us.
Please forgive a female lurker for interjecting. I’m uncertain as to whether it is appropriate for a woman to speak on a men’s site; if I speak out of turn, please just inform me, and I will speak no more.
I am a married mother who has fairly recently looked up and noticed that the world went crazy when I wasn’t paying attention. I’ve been with my husband for 21 years, and at least in my experience, things were different when I was young. Now, we have a daughter. And, apart from cherishing her childhood and not permitting influences that sexualize girls so very young, I’m just not sure what to do in this world gone mad.
Is there a resource for what to do, or not do, when raising a young girl (she’s preteen, in elementary school), in order to avoid this senseless entitlement and obscene debauchery that seems to be “normal” now?
I am sad to say that I do not believe that our church adequately addresses these concerns. We live in San Francisco, so the thrust of Catholicism here is primarily towards social justice (in the original sense, the preferential option for the poor) rather than towards traditional morality.
Apart from the above, and independent of whether you tell me to hush (my apologies if I should not have spoken), thank you, Dalrock, for your blog. It has helped me to look candidly at my thoughts, assumptions, life, and values, and I truly believe that it has helped me to be a better wife.
[D: Welcome Siobhan.]
@Glenfilthie,
There are a few things in life, boys, where money is no object: get the best rifle you can afford. Get the best education you can afford, and get the best WOMAN you can afford.
If by “afford” we are talking about money and not sweat equity and application of common sense learned through life experience this is simply a “dude”ism. My 30.06 Ruger M77 topped with a fixed 4x Leupold is as good as a rifle as I ever will need, spending more money (that I can technically afford) on more gun will not see my accuracy improve nor my hunting proficiency. This goes double for education and women.
An Asian version of Condoleezza Rice.
Gents,
Longtime lurker here. Please tread lightly regards Ms. Allison. She may be something of a modernist regards to male/female relations but her heart is in the right place. Check out the links to the “Happiness Hour” on Prager for more. Her book and video were the first intro my wife of almost 20 years (and nearly no more) had into the “I’m not a hairy woman!” understanding. Much help in getting our relationship in due order.
Raised an equalitarian, like most, by society, school and church (UMC). Ripped off the scales when my marriage went south and started running hardcore dread as my SMV/MMV was and is higher than my wife’s. I know many would say to cut losses and run but I’m a follower of Christ and I’ve a 12 year old so that wasn’t an option for me. Tough row to hoe and I did end up on the wrong end of a BS DV charge but I made it through all that. Now have a happy fulfilling household, frequent sex (3-4/week) and a daughter who’s coming to understand the definitive differences between men and women and how to treat each with respect for what they separately bring to the table.
Bringing a relationship built on equalitarian lies back from the brink is hard work and requires strength and patience. But the first thing it requires is unsheathing your backbone and standing up for what you want out of life AND what you expect from your marriage partner when you are bringing it from your end. If you don’t do that from the start, and I didn’t, the road you head down is perilous. Just wanted to say it can be done and thanks to Dal and the whole gang who post here.
@ Charlotte
That’s how I understand dating too. If a woman really wants sex with you, a guy doesn’t have to pay for a thing. The flipside is that is the gal you don’t want to marry and it is in your best interest to avoid her because she’s a barrel full of crazy waiting to happen. That’s why man should do well to control his own sex drive…for his own protection.
I want a woman that gets it. She saves herself for marriage and treats dating as getting to know someone for that possibility.
@ Charlotte Allen:
“My beliefs about dating: Dating–in contrast to picking up, hooking up, getting a free place to stay plus free sex, getting her to pay for sex with you–is for exactly one thing: spending serious time with someone you want to be your wife and the mother of your children if she’s young enough to bear children. That’s it.”
Not exactly. Courting is for finding a wife and mother of children. Everything else is hooking up. “Dating” is a socially polite and palatable label for today’s free for all.
“For that reason–because dating is actually serious–first dates should ALWAYS be cheap dates: a coffee, a drink, period. If your aim is strictly to get laid, you ought to be able to do it on a $2.50 ice cream cone–or less. And if your aim is just to get laid, and you can’t get laid for $2.50 (or get her to pay the $2.50), there’s something wrong with you.”
First dates should always be cheap dates because you don’t know if the woman is sexually attracted to you. If a man’s aim is to get laid and he can’t do it for free, it’s not because there’s something wrong with him, it’s because the woman wasn’t sexually attracted to him. IME a woman will sleep with a man if she finds him sexually attractive, and she doesn’t require a lot of pre-sex investment of money or time.
A man who’s not sexually attractive to a particular woman doesn’t have “something wrong” with him. It’s just that this woman at this time in these circumstances isn’t sexually attracted to this man. It’s actually pretty common.
‘First dates should always be cheap dates because you don’t know if the woman is sexually attracted to you.’
I keep first dates cheap not because I’m looking for sexual attraction…I’m looking for character. If she shows good character then I’ll proceed. Sexual attraction is something way down the road like the engagement process to dig into with a person.
Earl:
“I keep first dates cheap not because I’m looking for sexual attraction…I’m looking for character. If she shows good character then I’ll proceed. Sexual attraction is something way down the road like the engagement process to dig into with a person.”
That’s a course of action I can’t recommend.
Her sexual attraction to you has to be there from the outset. She either is sexually attracted to you, or she is not. If it’s not there in the first one or two dates, it won’t ever be there, and you’re wasting your time putting it off to “way down the road”. You’re also putting yourself and your children in grave danger. You need to know right away whether she is sexually attracted to you or not. Otherwise, all further interaction with her is an utter waste of time, money and resources.
By contrast, your sexual attraction to her is a given, or you wouldn’t have asked her on a date. Men pay no attention to women they aren’t sexually attracted to. Men spend nothing on women they’re not sexually attracted to — neither time nor money.
Rule of thumb, ladies — if a man is giving you any attention at all, he wants to have sex with you.
This does not pertain to the current thread, but might be of interest…. An article telling what it is like for a girl to be raised by two (lesbian) mothers and no father:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/17/dear-gay-community-your-kids-are-hurting/
The article is written by the girl, who is now 31, and married with children. Although both her mothers loved her, she says that when she was growing up, “I ached every day for a dad”. She has changed from being a gay-marriage advocate into a children’s rights activist.
Thus, this is another story to support the importance/irreplaceability of fathers.
Charlotte Allen says:
March 24, 2015 at 2:52 pm
My beliefs about dating: Dating–in contrast to picking up, hooking up, getting a free place to stay plus free sex, getting her to pay for sex with you–is for exactly one thing: spending serious time with someone you want to be your wife and the mother of your children if she’s young enough to bear children. That’s it. . . . For that reason–because dating is actually serious–first dates should ALWAYS be cheap dates: a coffee, a drink, period. If your aim is strictly to get laid, you ought to be able to do it on a $2.50 ice cream cone–or less. And if your aim is just to get laid, and you can’t get laid for $2.50 (or get her to pay the $2.50), there’s something wrong with you.”
Dear Charlotte,
What number of date is the date where you reform the divorce and child custody laws?
What number of date is the date where you reform the schools and universities?
What number of date is the date where you stop the world from drugging up and dumbing down young boys for being boys.
Dear Charlotte, have you heard that over 50% of marriages end in divorce and that over 75% of those divorces are initiated by women?
Dear Charlotte, did you know that even pre-nuptial agreements are often circumvented and voided?
Dear Charlotte, above you let us know that “dating is actually serious,” so what # of date does one address the serious issues destroying the family?
Dear Charlotte,
At what stage do you discuss this video during a “serious” date:
Or is the Constitution a non-serious issue?
@ deti
First dates should always be cheap dates because you don’t know if the woman is sexually attracted to you.
Sometimes you do, sometimes you don’t. I normally know within the first minute. She might have her radar turned off deliberately for a reason. E.g. a mom with whom I was flirting had her 17 yo daughter in tow. Mixed signals from the mom, likely because of the daughter being in tow. Don’t know for sure until I see the mom again if I do.
women have started dating for sex instead of marriage
Amen to that. I never pay for a woman unless she is worth my paying for. Heck, the vast majority of women I know for less than an hour before I’m putting it to them. Doesn’t really take a lot when they come back-stage looking to be pumped-and-dumped, and I’m more than willing as long as they are young and attractive. The only women “worth” anything more are the ones that I meet in other ways who show that they are worthy of more – it is as simple as that. So if you aren’t being taken care of by the man in your life – that’s usually because there is more than one man in your life, and you’re just not worth any man investing his assets in you. It is as simple as that ladies. He is telling you your worth – plain and simple. You just don’t want to listen – but that is common.
The women in my core group that I take care of, well, I pay for them to travel with me since I enjoy them, and they are a convenience for me, and really at 18-22 they don’t make very much since I like them young and in school. So it is only realistic that if I’m going to take her to Alaska on a cruise, or Yellowstone – I’m paying for it. She provides me with access to her, and I provide for her while she is doing it. But that is because they are worth it – their N count is very low – so they are “worth” my paying – in MY opinion. It is as simple as that – the woman that I meet after a concert is worth bending her over and enjoying – nothing more.
‘Her sexual attraction to you has to be there from the outset. She either is sexually attracted to you, or she is not.’
Well is she’s sexually attracted to you…what’s the point of dating or getting married? Just have sex with her and get it over with. Besides sexual attraction isn’t the be all end all indicator of people staying together because the woman could someday find some other guy she is MORE sexually attracted to. It happens all the time.
I’m looking at it long term. If she wants to marry me I assume she’s sexually attracted to me, because sex is part of the deal with marriage (and if she doesn’t know that, I’ll be sure to inform her of the particular Bible verse that points it out)…however her character is more important because you will be living with the woman and she will be the mother of your kids.
“Sometimes you do, sometimes you don’t. I normally know within the first minute. ”
Yes. What I meant was: on the first date, the man needs to assess whether the woman sitting at the bar with him or across the table from him or at the museum with him is sexually attracted to him. He doesn’t need to assess her character or her likes/dislikes or whether she has weird habits. And he doesn’t need to assess whether he is sexually attracted to her — that’s a given. Job number one for him is assessing whether she is hot for him. Because if she isn’t, then she is assessing him solely for beta bucks potential. He needs to know that right out of the gate.
If she shows no IOIs on the first date, there should not be a second. If he calls her for a second date and she can’t make it on the proposed day and doesn’t offer an alternative, he ends the conversation and deletes her info. If he sets up a second date and she flakes, he deletes her info and never calls her again.
Dear Churchians, What passage of Genesis is this:
The Boook of thedeti: “Yes. What I meant was: on the first date, the man needs to assess whether the woman sitting at the bar with him or across the table from him or at the museum with him is sexually attracted to him. He doesn’t need to assess her character or her likes/dislikes or whether she has weird habits. And he doesn’t need to assess whether he is sexually attracted to her — that’s a given. Job number one for him is assessing whether she is hot for him. Because if she isn’t, then she is assessing him solely for beta bucks potential. He needs to know that right out of the gate.”
Where does the Bible cover sexual attraction and beta bucks dalrocksalaozlzo?
Earl:
You’re missing the point. You need to know if she’s sexually attracted to you from the get go, because that’s one of the pillars of a marriage relationship. Marriage is a sexual relationship. Sex is the one thing a man does with his wife that he is not to do with anyone else. A woman who’s not sexually attracted to her husband will make his life miserable. You don’t want that. And you don’t want to waste time and money down the road on an otherwise compatible girl only to find out later that you’re just beta bux — she just isn’t all that into you.
“I’m looking at it long term. If she wants to marry me I assume she’s sexually attracted to me, because sex is part of the deal with marriage (and if she doesn’t know that, I’ll be sure to inform her of the particular Bible verse that points it out)…however her character is more important because you will be living with the woman and she will be the mother of your kids.”
I’m also looking at it long term. Trust me — the fact that a woman marries you does NOT mean she’s sexually attracted to you. You could be beta bucks. You cannot assume a woman is sexually attracted to you just because she marries you. This ain’t 1955, Earl. Sex is part of the deal with marriage, but that isn’t the way everyone sees it. You go right ahead and read all the Bible verses you want to your betrothed. All the Scripture in the world will not make her attracted to you if she’s “just not feeling it” for her beta bucks-man. Character is important, but sexual attraction is too. Yes, you’ll be living with her. If you don’t want a miserable life, choose a woman who can’t wait to jump your bones.
I dunno GBFM, the part between when one guy married his half-sister and where the other guy took his first cousin into a tent and “comforted himself with her” or maybe later after the one guy slept with two of his cousins (who happened to be sisters) and their handmaidens? When discussing sexual morality in conjunction with modern Churchian values and the book of Genesis I often get confused
Deti
Have Earl use a little game to keep that gina tingle going. First thing he should do is let is wife know other women want to sex him up. Besides that most women know they are easily gotten rid of without hostages (children, his). Until she gets herself knocked up she will screw like a girlfriend. Good time to try out some weird stuff you saw on the internet. Never forget female nature and how it adapts to her environment. We live under the feminine imperative and that behavior goes with female nature and the feminine imperative.
thedeti writes, “You’re missing the point. You need to know if she’s sexually attracted to you from the get go, because that’s one of the pillars of a marriage relationship. Marriage is a sexual relationship. Sex is the one thing a man does with his wife that he is not to do with anyone else. A woman who’s not sexually attracted to her husband will make his life miserable. You don’t want that. And you don’t want to waste time and money down the road on an otherwise compatible girl only to find out later that you’re just beta bux — she just isn’t all that into you.”
Dear thedeti,
Did you find this Christian wisdom in Genesis? In Exodus? In Matthew? Did Jesus teach, “You need to know if she’s sexually attracted to you from the get go, because that’s one of the pillars of a marriage relationship. Marriage is a sexual relationship.?”
What if a woman is sexually attracted to you at first, but then loses interest? Is she then justified, as you say, in making you “beta bux?”
It is easy to see that thedeti is a woman preaching the gospel of SEX, as churchian women are encouraged to do, serving as the useful iditiots the Marxists are using to destroy the family, the West, and enslave good men.
Making sure a woman is sexually attracted to you is just common sense advice for men who choose to marry under our current Marriage 2.0 regime. Her sexual attraction cannot be presumed simply because she dates him, or has sex with him, or even agrees to marry him. Presuming a woman is sexually attracted to a man merely because she agrees to marry him is foolhardy, to say the least. At worst it will ruin his children’s lives.
TFH
As a man that is supposedly red pill and aware of the truth and reality he has no business even talking marriage today. No man really should. It is actually rather irresponsible.
Deti
Another Christian man making the case for surrogacy
Here’s what I’d recommend to earl.
1. Do not date any woman exclusively until you and she are ready to talk about getting married.
2. Test for her sexual attraction at the end of the first date by attempting a kiss on her lips. If she returns the kiss, there is attraction. If she moves away, or turns her head, she’s not attracted. Delete her info.
Folks, marriage is simply too risky to go about it any other way. If we were living in another era, I’d consider other means. But we’re not living in another era; we’re living in THIS one, in which women have absolutely all the power and can bring to bear the full force of the state and the law, backed up by men with guns. We’re living in an era in which her sexual attraction for him is the only thing that keeps her with him. And it has to be there in that marriage, and he has to know it’s there, or very soon after the nuptials he will not have a marriage.
‘Test for her sexual attraction at the end of the first date by attempting a kiss on her lips. If she returns the kiss, there is attraction. If she moves away, or turns her head, she’s not attracted.’
Yes, the attempt of the kiss tells you everything you need to know. But I’ll generally even wait with that. I can tell if she’s into me without needing to get so quickly into the physical realm.
Basically…does she keep showing up to dates or even better, ask me out on one.
And I say that because I have kissed on first dates…and still get the no response or ‘no’ to a second date.
. Character is important, but sexual attraction is too. Yes, you’ll be living with her. If you don’t want a miserable life, choose a woman who can’t wait to jump your bones.
@thedeti
Won’t a lot of men be doomed to a lifetime of singleness if they wait for this? A lot of women marry men who would make good husbands and fathers but aren’t sexy.
It doesn’t even have to be an either/or thing. A lot of gals with high character want to jump your bones if they like you…but they play coy on that until they are married.
Mmhmm
No. They will be blessed with a life of singleness. That’s better than settling on a woman who isn’t sexually attracted to them. You suggest these men sign up to be great husbands to wives who don’t really love them or want them. That’s hell on earth.
I think Deti sums up Dalrock’s teachings with this:
thedeti says:
“March 24, 2015 at 5:48 pm
Making sure a woman is sexually attracted to you is just common sense advice for men who choose to marry under our current Marriage 2.0 regime. Her sexual attraction cannot be presumed simply because she dates him, or has sex with him, or even agrees to marry him. Presuming a woman is sexually attracted to a man merely because she agrees to marry him is foolhardy, to say the least. At worst it will ruin his children’s lives.”
What Deti is saying is that marriage is based not upon a covenant, nor the Word of God, nor the Law of Moses, nor the Wisdom of Jesus, not wedding vows, but upon the gina tingle.
If ever a woman is not sexually attracted to a man, she can blow up the marriage.
Such is what the Churchian teaches.
http://time.com/3752030/women-more-sex-sleep-study/
The SMP is too nuanced for most conservatives to understand. All those conservatives who ally with the feminists when it comes to the idea that men need to “man up” and marry skanks, or that they need to be chivalrous while not getting anything in return, is nothing but conservatives still being trapped in the Matrix. They are just going with the flow of the feminist zeitgeist. They just don’t get it.
I get if a woman has no sexual attraction that’s hell on earth for a man. But he’s more than likely projecting his feelings onto her and missing all the obvious signs that she’s a cold fish to him.
But the flipside is if a lot of women are having multiple sexual partners how does sexual attraction prove she loves or wants that particular man? Sex can certainly be used for manipulation and then when she gets what she wants…she turns it off.
https://chronicle.com/article/Sexual-Paranoia-Strikes/190351/
—
The SMP is too nuanced for most conservatives to understand. All those conservatives who ally with the feminists when it comes to the idea that men need to “man up” and marry skanks, or that they need to be chivalrous while not getting anything in return, is nothing but conservatives still being trapped in the Matrix. They are just going with the flow of the feminist zeitgeist. They just don’t get it.
They’re weak. They’re taking the path of least resistance (which, coincidentally, leads to Marxism) that is laid out for them by the Leftists/critical theorists/Marxists. They end up deferring to the Marxists because Marxists seem to have greater belief in what they say (through academia, propaganda, Hollywood, whatever).
‘Are these women virgins?’
Yes.
‘If they claim they are, do you believe them?’
Until proven otherwise.
Are they celibate while playing coy, or having sex with another man on the side?
They are celibate.
Are they virgins even if they are much older than 22?
Some women do save themselves for marriage and are older than 22.
If they are not virgins, why would you consider them for marriage, since sex outside marriage (even Marriage 2.0) is sin, to you?
If she is Catholic, went to confession and truly repented and didn’t have any children as a result, I’d certainly inquire. What I don’t want her doing is eluding that the sex wasn’t a sin, or blaming the guy, or playing the victim. As you can see for me it’s either a virgin or a fairly rare case if she isn’t.
‘Are you aware that many women often have sex just for the heck of it, because they want a one-night-stand and don’t really care about the husband-potential of the man?’
Yes and if they have that mindset, they aren’t marriage material. They only care about themselves. We’ve seen enough stories about what happens when they do get married.
You’re missing the point. You need to know if she’s sexually attracted to you from the get go, because that’s one of the pillars of a marriage relationship.
Obviously, the writer has never been married. If sexual attraction is one of the pillars of marriage, then what happens when sexual attraction fades? When the couple gets down to living day to day with each other, and the butterfly feelings are no longer there? While the role of attraction cannot be totally discounted, it is a mistake to think that you will always feel sexually attracted to your spouse, no matter how attractive they might be.
If you are talking about the ones who aren’t virgins who do a great job of rationalizing their pasts to the ‘blue pill’ men then yes there are plenty out there. And plenty of men who will go along with it and marry them.
But I’m wondering if guys have become so cynical that they assume all women are either not virgins or are lying when they say they are.
Won’t a lot of men be doomed to a lifetime of singleness if they wait for this? A lot of women marry men who would make good husbands and fathers but aren’t sexy.
This is what most women do. And it leads to mischief in a world where (i) sexual satisfaction is defined as one of the most essential aspects of any relationship (including marriage) and (ii) people can divorce for no reason. Sexual dissatisfaction among women due to lack of attraction is really what underlies a lot of no fault divorces today, the ones where “I love him, but I’m not in love with him” type of thing. As others have said, most marriages go through this, but it nevertheless is a widely accepted reason for divorce (falling out of love, while still loving the spouse — i.e., “not feeling it”). So, yes, as a practical matter in this world, having strong sexual attraction initially and maintaining that in marriage is a key to avoiding a no-fault divorce, especially where so many women are, as you say, marrying what we call “BB”.
Deti, if we assume that we are sarging bars, dance studios, whatever, we’ll know almost immediately if the woman is attracted. Then we might ask them for a date if there’s resistance to a SNL. Anymore, the three date sex rule is a thing of the past.
As regards attraction, looks aren’t the be all end all. If a woman gives off a mom-wrapped-up-in-her-kids vibe or a nun vibe, those can be attraction killers. Happened to me last Sat. nite. Took a 42 yo blonde HB7 who had a 17 yo daughter in tow (at the dance event, not on the walk) out for a walk and didn’t even want to kiss her. We locked arms and chatted. Since she wanted to be isolated with me, I assume that she wanted to kiss. Talked about God a bunch. She told me that her life is in a rut; I doubt she gets out much.
She told me she thought I was interested because of how much time I invested in her. I was more practicing my convo skills and getting background material for my book. My walk invitation was so that I could eliminate my inhibitions against isolating with a woman and doing overt kino.
I could try it again and see if it makes a diff if the kid isn’t there…maybe I’ll feel more attraction.
@ Earl
A lot of gals with high character
How do you find them? I know one…maybe two.
If a man has to pay for a woman’s company, he might as well hire a professional and be sure he’s getting his money’s worth. Anything else is generally too costly to even consider, especially if he’s not working steady or has a lot of debt. Besides, either of these conditions automatically causes rejection in the MMP.
All men need to learn “game”
Female sexual attraction is situational. A 20 year old college drop out with 36k in student loan debt will find a 58k year beta attractive. Will sex him and even be happy to see him when he comes around. He marries her gives her the title of mother an SUV. a cell phone etc. He even helps her finish her education. Youngest child 4 oldest 6 she has new job and a year later has fallen out of love with the man she loves. They haven’t had sex but maybe 7 -8 times sense the last child was born. He ask her what is wrong and declares his love and commitment to her. He wishes to just make her happy. Frivorce is on the way. That is how it works. The nature of women will not allow a woman to be sexually attracted to a man that she owns. It doesn’t matter what he says or does. Women do nothing out of a sense of duty or honor. That is why Chrstianity , wedding vows, and any kind of custom or tradition means nothing to women
‘How do you find them? I know one…maybe two.’
In the past, they’ve come to me. Influence can be a powerful thing.
But just as important I consider it a win if I repel a woman with bad character. Having easy casual sex with them or getting married to them would just ruin my perceptions of life.
‘In addition to the Fri+Sat mathematics I provided above, many guys, including myself, have had sex with women we met during the daytime, the very next time we met her (the first formal date).’
Did these women just straight offer it to you…or was that your intention all along to have sex with them?
Did these women just straight offer it to you…or was that your intention all along to have sex with them?””
da poor gbfm had no choice in the matter:
The best part of that photo is the two guys showing their respect.
“A lot of gals with high character want to jump your bones if they like you…but they play coy on that until they are married.”
Earl, not only do you not have any basis for that assertion, you neither have a prayer of finding such unicorns. Reset. Reboot. You’re not living in Samaria, circa 56 BC.
‘In addition to the Fri+Sat mathematics I provided above, many guys, including myself, have had sex with women we met during the daytime, the very next time we met her (the first formal date).’
During the years between marriages (2000-2006) I was astounded after 8 years of being married how easy this had become. Church girls, secular girls, no difference. According to Rollos writings it probably had something to do with SMV (I turned 30 in 2001, had more income, more confidence, self control, etc). But TFHs estimates strike me as probably pretty accurate earl.
@TFH
Maybe 10% of them are, but not more.
If I recall correctly, at 25, I believe it is indeed around 10% (in the US). (At 18 it’s about 50% (again, for the US).) Now, in some cases, it’s N=1, and they go on to marry the guy.
When I was dating and thought of marriage, it was just known that the woman you married was going to have an N count. Wasn’t really thought about much. Course back then, we didn’t have the studies of women’s inability to bond as their N count climbed.
TFH – nice to see that the disciple has surpassed the master. 10% close count is definitely outside the bounds of chance!
gunnerq says:
March 24, 2015 at 1:45 pm
Well said sir. Well said.
Is there a resource for what to do, or not do, when raising a young girl (she’s preteen, in elementary school), in order to avoid this senseless entitlement and obscene debauchery that seems to be “normal” now?
I truly am sorry for you. I wish I had an answer for you. If I had a daughter I would have spent the last few years preparing to move my family to a country that honors fathers and husbands and holds women accountable for their actions. The plan would have been to get her out long before her teen years.
Loving girlfriend! Woo! Chastity, ARGGHHH!
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=952721
Trying to save marriage
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=952752
NFP ruined marriage?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=952704
But I’m wondering if guys have become so cynical that they assume all women are either not virgins or are lying when they say they are.
Yes Earl, they are very cynical.
It may be accurate, but I still believe God has a remnant in any society.
I also believe that their samples are self-selected for sluts. Kind of like women not seeing men they are not attracted to, they don’t see the ones who really are chaste. Though a women could never prove that to them without 24×7 video of their lives, something that isn’t going to happen.
The challenge may be tough, but civilization will ultimately rebuild on those who follow it. The modern situation is not sustainable forever.
I’m just about 32, she’s turning 37. I’ll start out by saying we didn’t have a chaste start but we are both Catholic and both attend mass, go to confession, receive the Blessed Sacrament, and after a discussion early on we decided we are not going to fool around anymore.
A bit late to seek chastity for them MacrusD. I also suspect they won’t have to worry much about NFP if she is 37 as noted.
I thank all of you for your prayers and encouragement. Happily girls flirting with me has almost never been an issue. Hahaha! I’m lucky I snagged this one before she noticed I was short or something.
She is 5 years older than him and well past the wall….
I suspect he will have some really sad tales to tell in the future.
I really shouldn’t read these this late at night.
I have two words for Ying Ma:
Boo Hoo.
The “conservative Asian woman” is a myth deliberately peddled by marriage-age Asian women in order to differentiate themselves as better than their Western counterparts.
“We’re not slutty. We have Asian values”
“We understand and appreciate men. It’s part of our Asian values”
“Children? As many as you want. In our culture, the man is in charge”.
The reality of the Asian woman is that as soon as she has the number of children SHE wants, the husband is pushed to the sidelines to be a wage slave while she raises the children wih her ideas and hers alone. Sex falls off the cliff. Asking for it will get you the curt reply of “Grow up”. The irony of the fact that adults actually have sex is lost on them.
While being treated for Mixed Mood Disorder years ago, I was told by my therapist that the most common sufferers of this problem were traditional Christian/ Catholic men raised with those values who marry Asian women. Children come along and they find it incredibly difficult to adjust. It isn’t uncommon for example for Asian mothers to sleep in their teenage daughters and teenage sons beds, way after such children have passed puberty while the husband sleeps alone.
Asian men have less of a problem with their treatment at the hands of Asian women, apparently, as in their house holds, their father got sidelined so they are used to it.
So, my response to “conservative” Asian women is this: stop treating your husband like he’s a piece of garbage and maybe he might be chivalrous to you, bitch.
‘I also believe that their samples are self-selected for sluts.’
As do I. Sure if you don’t have sex with a slut after two dates she’s probably gone…but I wonder why many guys are reducing themselves to their level.
See, women are always the victims:
http://fee.org/freeman/detail/title-ix-and-the-law-of-unintended-consequences
During WW2 many American servicemen were based in Great Britain and gained the reputation of being over-sexed, over-paid and over-here. They all, of course, sounded like film stars even if they did not all look like Gary Cooper or Cary Grant (though oddly enough both those matinee-idols had English parents). Americans were perceived to be different.
I have just been over at Rollo’s who is talking about AF/BB female strategy and I left a comment but thought better of observing that there is, dare I say it, what seems to be an American obsession with virginity. What does it matter if you marry a woman who it transpires has an N higher than you would like. You are married so make the best of it. Discretion is better than letting it all hang out (as we were discussing only the other day) .Of course, marrying a career-gal in her thirties should alert you to the fact that she is almost certain an ex-carousel rider and is now settling. Every case of course according to its merits and young marriage is sometimes unnecessarily hasty.
Ok…I’d much rather have a girl who practices chastity.
Does that make more sense?
‘ I have heard it said that Satan will do everything he can to get you to have sex with your girlfriend and everything he can to keep you from sex with your wife.’
He certainly has plenty of mouthpieces promoting that idea.
If a woman’s attraction is paramount, then a not-so-handsome beta with a decent career may as well take a chance with the hottest woman he can get(within reason) if he is looking for marriage. If he is a 5 in looks, and the Manosphere is correct about how female attraction works, in addition to how promiscuous modern women are, then a female 5 won’t find him significantly more attractive than a 7, so why bother with the 5?
Personally I tell men to avoid marriage altogether. I don’t know one married man in my cohort(30-40) that is truly happy with his lot in life. Most of my married friends look for any excuse to get away from the wife.
It’s just not worth it.
I met my wife 32 years ago when we were both attending a small university. We were both older, non-traditional students, plus she was a foreign student from the Philippines. When we went on our first date, she said something that completely blew my mind, “You’re spending too much money on me.” She knew that money was very tight for me and didn’t want me wasting it on the traditional (at the time) dating experience. Never in my life had a woman said that to me. We married just a few months after our first date. We both worked throughout our marriage until she had to retire due to health issues three years ago. In that time, we’ve built a net worth from essentially nothing to the low seven figures. Her frugality and practicality are big reasons why we’ve been so financially successful, and it started with her telling me that I was spending too much money on her. I thank God that I didn’t marry any of the American women I dated before meeting her.
“I also believe that their samples are self-selected for sluts. Kind of like women not seeing men they are not attracted to, they don’t see the ones who really are chaste. Though a women could never prove that to them without 24×7 video of their lives, something that isn’t going to happen.
Fact: CDC figures state the typical American woman has a median (or average) of 3 premarital sex partners. I’ll be conservative and give the benefit of the doubt, use a “rule of 2″ minus one, and call that 5 premarital sex partners.
Fact: Only around 10% of never-married American women report they are virgins, i.e. N=0
Speculation premised on real world knowledge: If we correct for the fact that the 10% female virginity figure takes into account only P in V, and the fact that a woman who’s never had P in V but has more than a little experience in sex practices with names ending in the word ” -job”, then we’re probably looking at a real, actual “virginity” rate of around 5%, and that might even be a liberal estimate.
So, in reality, we’re looking at a society in which the vast majority of women have been sexually promiscuous. We’re looking at a society in which virtually every woman a man comes in contact with is a slut, is on her way to being a slut, was a slut, wants to be a slut, or wanted to be a slut but couldn’t because of lack of attraction or religious considerations.
If they are single at 25, 28, or 30, a 6 or higher in looks, and still claim to be ‘saving themselves for marriage’, they are lying about their virginity.
Really? Which study supported this view, or it was just pulled out of thin air?
My most recent ex was a virgin and very attractive. Tall, slim, with a nice figure, and well endowed in the chest area. I’d say she’s at least an 8. Maybe a 9. I often get a hard on chatting with her on FaceTime, when her ample bossom came into view, depending on how she placed her iPad. She’s in her 30’s. A preacher’s kid. I was to marry her this past month. I called the whole thing off over the holidays when she showed me how utterly self-centered and controlling she was. We had a minor disagreement and she pulled the “I will break up with you if you don’t do what I want” card. I had to giver her her marching orders, the smoking hot figure notwithstanding. It was as if I peered down through the future, I and I saw myself under her ever abiding threat point. I saw an old man, worn down by his controlling wife, with premature grey hairs and sunken eyelids, resigned to obey the boss lady, or else get kicked out of his house and out of the lives of his future kids. I had to take a pass. But it was a difficult decision, I won’t lie to you.
And, yes, America still has very decent, physically attractive and chaste women. The trick is to go to where they are. And of course, pray for God’s guidance.
So are most men seeking women who are sexually promiscuous? For all the talk about the dangers of these women has that stopped men from being involved with them?
See I’m of the ilk that I’d rather repel a woman who is sexually promiscuous and attract a chaste one. Even if it’s 5% it is better to be single man and hold out hope for one than to be with a slut in any sort of form. They only have one thing to offer and about 100 pounds of baggage which could get dumped into your lap if you aren’t careful.
“My most recent ex was a virgin”
And you know this how? Because she told you?
She’s in her 30s and was a preacher’s kid, very attractive with big breasts? And you interacted with her on FaceTime? And you were engaged to a woman you interacted with on FaceTime? This was obviously a long distance relationship. Did you ever interact with her in person?
If she told you she was a virgin, did you believe her? If so, why? Why did you take her word for it? And why in the name of Mike would you get engaged to a woman where a substantial part of your interactions with her are on FaceTime (which got you aroused)?
And let’s say that unless you have sex with a woman after two dates she’ll leave. After you have sex with her does the relationship improve? Is the relationship about anything other than sex? Have you two developed trust? If she was that easy with you…how easily could she give it to any guy?
Or is it about just having sex and the dates and the females involved are irrelevant?
“Obviously, the writer has never been married. If sexual attraction is one of the pillars of marriage, then what happens when sexual attraction fades? When the couple gets down to living day to day with each other, and the butterfly feelings are no longer there? While the role of attraction cannot be totally discounted, it is a mistake to think that you will always feel sexually attracted to your spouse, no matter how attractive they might be.”
I have been married. What happens when the sexual attraction fades is not nearly as bad as what happens when the sexual attraction is never there in the first place, or where the sexual attraction is not as strong as it was for men she used to sleep with.
And when the attraction fades, or waxes and wanes as it does in every marriage, then you have the recollections of the early days of your marriage when she was hot for you, and you were hot for her. Those recollections carry you through the tough times, and they give a couple hope that they can be recaptured.
There is always hope so long as the attraction was once there, at the beginning. There is no hope if the attraction was never there to begin with or if she is pining away for the more attractive men she slept with before she married you.
I am not saying spouses are ALWAYS sexually attracted to each other. I am saying that a wife MUST be sexually attracted to a husband before they marry, or it is hopeless.
@thedeti
No. They will be blessed with a life of singleness. That’s better than settling on a woman who isn’t sexually attracted to them. You suggest these men sign up to be great husbands to wives who don’t really love them or want them. That’s hell on earth.
I’m suggesting that men who have not been blessed with the gift of celibacy should avoid sexual immorality and marry the woman that will have them. There are only so many attractive men out there. Some men will have to settle for being settled for.
Fact: CDC figures state the typical American woman has a median (or average) of 3 premarital sex partners. I’ll be conservative and give the benefit of the doubt, use a “rule of 2″ minus one, and call that 5 premarital sex
Median means that half of the women have less than 3 partners and half have more. That’s wrong by Biblical standards but 3 or less is not promiscuous. Men who end up with sluts like slutty women and are passing over a lot of nonslutty women (not virgins but not sluts either ) to be with them. Only a very foolish man ends up married to a promiscuous woman.
I completely fail to understand how any man can spend any time in this community, and at the same time expect a completely truthful answer when they ask a woman for her N.
Women are just as saturated with the messages of premarital sex from the world as men are. Considering their choices of clothing and being put on birth control is seen as a right of passage what is the world saying to them. We know they are the weaker sex and with the lack of strong male leadership many bite into that apple of promiscuity. It takes a lot of effort to go against the world and what it is saying. Some women can do it and those are the ones I know are strong.
However I would term it as they are practicing chastity. There are some virgins out there you pointed out that have done everything but…they still are tainted.
“Some men will have to settle for being settled for.”
1. Most men would be fine for “being settled for”, as long as the women who were “doing the settling” were fine with that too.
If the women “doing the settling” would graciously accept their lots, would be good wives, would freely give love to the good but not-so-attractive men who agreed to take them on as wives, would love these men despite the fact that he’s not The One She Truly Wanted, would keep their promises, would not blow up their marriages because “they’re just not feeling it” and would just generally not be bitches, I think you’d hear much, much less about this in the manosphere.
2. In today’s legal and social environment, where the women “doing the settling” have the absolute right to detonate their marriages because they’re “just not feeling it” and because they want a do-over after “settling”, being unmarried and celibate is preferable to that risk.
“Men who end up with sluts like slutty women and are passing over a lot of nonslutty women (not virgins but not sluts either ) to be with them.”
You must be Plain Jane. How are you?
Anyway, a lot of those not so attractive men who are trying to get married aren’t “passing over” a lot of “nonslutty” women. Those “nonslutty” women are passing over those men, rejecting those men left and right. So no, men are not rejecting nonslutty women. It’s the other way around – those women reject those men. Women are in the driver’s seat in this society.
“Only a very foolish man ends up married to a promiscuous woman.”
Yep. But a foolish man can wise up and he can repair much of the consequences of his foolishness. A promiscuous woman will bear the consequences of her promiscuity for the rest of her natural life. A slut can only become a reformed slut. She will never be a nonslut, or a never-slut. She will always be either a slut or a former slut.
Deti, you said, “I have been married.”
Thought you and the wife had worked it out. Sorry if it failed Bro. Praying for you Deti.
DeNihilist: Still am married. Not failed (as far as I know). I was responding to Dave, who speculated that I’d never been married.
And thanks for the prayers.
@ GBFM
da poor gbfm had no choice in the matter:
Ya, pretty much that was me last night, sans kissing. She was all over me. Not a whale, tho. More a heifer.
You must be Plain Jane. How are you?
Anyway, a lot of those not so attractive men who are trying to get married aren’t “passing over” a lot of “nonslutty” women. Those “nonslutty” women are passing over those men, rejecting those men left and right. So no, men are not rejecting nonslutty women. It’s the other way around – those women reject those men. Women are in the driver’s seat in this society.
“Only a very foolish man ends up married to a promiscuous woman.”
Yep. But a foolish man can wise up and he can repair much of the consequences of his foolishness. A promiscuous woman will bear the consequences of her promiscuity for the rest of her natural life. A slut can only become a reformed slut. She will never be a nonslut, or a never-slut. She will always be either a slut or a former slut.
I’m not Plain Jane but I’m well thank you. How are you? I suppose if regular women are passing over the man and sluts are all that will have him then he has no other options. I would still be very cautious about becoming one with a slut. Her consequences become his consequences.
‘I completely fail to understand how any man can spend any time in this community, and at the same time expect a completely truthful answer when they ask a woman for her N.’
I asked one and she said she said 0. I believed her based on the other actions she’s displayed. If you think every woman is lying about her N that’s going to drive you nuts no matter if you ask the question or not.
I know she is lying and probably promiscuous when she dodges the question, asks ‘what business is it of yours’, gives you a long period of silence, or any other tactic that seeks to deflect an answer. If she tells it straight…I take it as the truth.
@ earl
We know they are the weaker sex and with the lack of strong male leadership many bite into that apple of promiscuity.
The Blue Pill is strong in this one. “Snot da faultz uff da wimmenzzzz.”
@ earl
If she tells it straight…I take it as the truth.
Lollllzlzlzollzllolz Blue Pill to the max. De wimmenz can’t lie convincingly.
‘Lollllzlzlzollzllolz Blue Pill to the max. De wimmenz can’t lie convincingly.’
Do you know the tells of a lie?
zlozlzl
GBFM ECONOMICZ MAXIM # 1: A woman’s courtship value is equal or less than the lowest price she ever gave her pussy away for. lzolzoz
GBFM ECOnOMICZ MAXIM # 1:
A woman’s courtship value is equal or less than the lowest price she ever gave her pussy away for. lzozozoz
After a woman has had a one-night stand
or given her pussy for free
her courtship value
is 0.
or less than 0.
As why would you want to be the guy
who pays for what others got when it was younger hotter tighter
forty pounds lighter
for freeee?
lzozlzozlzzo
After a woman passes 25, whence she has generally been buttcocked numerous times and desouled, her courtship value is negative. It is the woman, who is now wired fiat bernanke cash and allowed to excel in fiat bernanke programs that drug up and dumb down boyz while deocntsructing da GREAT BOOKS 4 MENZ and creating far more debt than wealth while bankruping the West morally amnd moneetarily, who must pay the man so as to court him.
For a 25 year old multi-buttocked, desouled, bernankifed woman represents a huge risk to a man’s livelihood, his time, his conscience, his soul, his future earnings, and his general well-being. And the man must be compensated justly so as to have to court a woman over 25 who has been buttcocked and deousled and converted by the cenrta; bankerz into a vehicle of welath transfer lzozlz so dey could convert their masisve fiat debt into physical property by leveraging a woman’s sexuality for prviate profit gains while placing all teh risksz on good menz zlozzllz.
lzolzolzozozozozoz
zlzoozozoz
‘The Blue Pill is strong in this one. “Snot da faultz uff da wimmenzzzz.”
Biting into the apple is her fault. You also can’t ignore the many messages that are being sent to her telling her to bite into the apple. It’s a widespread failure of both men and women.
On the subject of lie detection:
The only way to effectively “know” if someone is lying is by the use of instruments (tests) that incorporate several different variables, statistically analyzed to produce a probability.
Neurolinguistic Processing? Liturature has crushed this in every study out there, but everyone still thinks it works.
Polygraph? Voodoo.
There is some promissing stuff coming from Cognitive Interviewing, but this only yields results with a lot of training, and it has to be about a specific story/narrative. A simply “how many N?” doesn’t work, because it does not have enough detail.
Essentially, you have to embed the items which detect consistency/inconsistency, infrequent (low base rate) phenomenon that the person endorses, etc.
When clinicians (even those who are trained in like NLP, or are forensic certified, etc) are pitted against a well validated and normed instrument, the clinicians lose every time. They say things like “I have X years of experience and I can just ‘tell’ if the person is lying.” And they are wrong far more than the tests are.
It’s basically the fundamental attribution error.
“I suppose if regular women are passing over the man and sluts are all that will have him then he has no other options.”
No. His other (and the only viable) option is to eschew marriage.
Otherwise, he will marry a slut and (1) expose himself to the risk of cuckoldry and divorce; and (2) impose on himself the necessity to manage her with hardcore dread for the duration of the marriage.
@Scott, I think that women with high N counts can be detected from space with the right instruments. The first one being, that in the absence of evidence based on our society that they have a high N count. Unless there is some contravening evidence such as cultural or religious heritage that would suggest otherwise, suspect a high N count. Broken home? Ditto. Girls these days practically wear it on their sleeves. When in doubt watch their behavior around men they are attracted to. Not being doped up by the blue pill is the quickest way to clear your head on the subject.
Also, we’re all sinners. We all have a sin nature and VERY few have been given the tools to recognize it and deal with it (both inside and outside the Church) and even the ones that do know better rarely apply the Cross to their own flesh. That is out of favor for some reason.
‘Girls these days practically wear it on their sleeves.’
Heck I’ve had them mention in casual conversation that they spent the night at a boyfriend’s house. They let their promiscuity hang out for all to see.
Only men who look at their feels or are so thirsty they’d take any woman who comes their way overlook these things.
GIL-
I am tracking. Trust me, based on the current state of affairs in the MMP, you should assume no one is a virgin. Unless you go to an Amish or similar community.
I was actually trying address it from the other side. Earl seems to think he can tell just by taking to them. This strikes me as wishful thinking.
Indications of potential high N (or at least that she’s a nonvirgin):
1. Divorced parents, esp. mom divorced dad
2. Has a tattoo
3. Part of body other than ears pierced
4. Moved away from home for college
5. Her friends are sluts/nonvirgins
6. Is on hormonal birth control (the Pill, Norplant)
7. Is at church following a lengthy period of time away, calls it “returning home” to “get things straightened out” and “wants to do it the right way this time”
8. Smokes cigarettes
@ earl
You also can’t ignore the many messages that are being sent to her telling her to bite into the apple.
It’s called “sin”. Not “biting into the apple”. 🙂 Women sin because they are sinners. They aren’t sinners because they sin. Sin is endemic in women just like it is in men. The FI says that women are corrupted by men and are victims of players, of the World’s messages, etc.
Here’s what I want to see becoming widespread enough that it starts getting mentioned in leftist rags:
Man goes out on date with woman, and they have dinner together. He quietly pays for his meal only. When she realizes this, and looks inquisitively/critically in his direction, he tells her that he’s saving his wallet for marriage. (Bonus points if he tells her he is “traditional”.)
@ earl, GBFM
Have you all started reading the Song of Solomon yet to see how it is filled with Game principles? Preselection. Apex Alpha. Isolation. Instigation. Escalation. Women’s need for validation. Beauty. Desire. Negs. Dread. I’ve written posts about some of these things in the SoS.
If she told you she was a virgin, did you believe her? If so, why? Why did you take her word for it? And why in the name of Mike would you get engaged to a woman where a substantial part of your interactions with her are on FaceTime (which got you aroused)?
I was not born yesterday, and I have to tell you, I know how to smell through women’s BS very quickly.
I did deliberately push boundries, tested again and again, and satisfied myself that she has never been physically intimate with a man before.
Of course I did not perform a physical examination to confirm anything (there is really no consistent physical proof anyhow; virgins may lose their hymen through other means outside of sexual activites; and fake hymens can be surgically implanted). But over the period that I knew her, I was satisfied with the information that I got.
No, our interactions were not mainly over FaceTime; we only used that to talk every night. I knew her over a 4.5 year period, and we had spent time at each other’s places during that time. We lived in different states so FaceTime was quite helpful.
And, yes, I got aroused, but I never lost my focus, nor violate the clear written word of God about sex.
Mmhmm says:
March 24, 2015 at 1:23 pm
“There’s really no need to complain about men not paying. Simply don’t see those men again. They either aren’t that interested or they are looking for the kind of woman who doesn’t mind paying for dates. Either way I’d pass.”
Miss Ma is a post-wall bowser. Those men are apparently all she can get to display even a flicker of interest. Think of her as a multiple-owner, poorly-made item you run across at a flea market. If the price is ANYTHING but nominal, you pass on it without a second’s hesitation.
MarcusD,
Wow that first link (chastity) is kind of amazing. She’s 37, they’re not married yet and probably won’t be until she’s 38, and they’re talking about a future with LOTS of babies? Never mind the marriage counseling, this couple needs someone to help them with the MATH!
I completely fail to understand how any man can spend any time in this community, and at the same time expect a completely truthful answer when they ask a woman for her N.
Your cynicism knows no bounds. I assure you, not every woman you see walking the street bumps uglies every night. And, there are still real chaste women out there who are chaste indeed. You cannot only get the information from them, you can observe their mannerrisms, and make up your own mind. And of course, there are lots of “born again virgins” as well. That said, not every single woman who is not a virgin is a slut.
Those “nonslutty” women are passing over those men, rejecting those men left and right. So no, men are not rejecting nonslutty women. It’s the other way around – those women reject those men. Women are in the driver’s seat in this society.
See the emphasis above. That mentality is exactly why the women are passing over the (Blue-pilled) men.
The fact is, when you take a stand, and you declare what you are about, you attract those women to you who are willing to work with you, and you repel all others. When you live, talk and act masculine, you will not fail to attract feminine women to you.
When I start dating a woman I make it clear that, if we end up getting married, I expect her to cook and handle the home front. I also tell her I love lots of kids and I would expect to have up to 4 kids. Almost like clockwork, the women either think I am crazy, and stop taking my calls, or they get even more attracted to me, after their customary feeble resistance. I am currently speaking with an attractive Asian woman now. She is a well educated professional with a doctorate. She is not only eager to come visit and cook for me, she is open to having my 4 kids should we get married.
It’s the wishy-washy blue-pill approach that gets women bored. By virtue of your gender as a man, you are in the driver’s seat. Anything else is an aberration.
The “if you aren’t attracting/handling hot chaste women you are doing it wrong” meme leaves one post and jumps over here, with a different name.
Sheesh.
Siobhan says:
March 24, 2015 at 2:58 pm
“I am a married mother who has fairly recently looked up and noticed that the world went crazy when I wasn’t paying attention. I’ve been with my husband for 21 years, and at least in my experience, things were different when I was young. Now, we have a daughter. And, apart from cherishing her childhood and not permitting influences that sexualize girls so very young, I’m just not sure what to do in this world gone mad.
Is there a resource for what to do, or not do, when raising a young girl (she’s preteen, in elementary school), in order to avoid this senseless entitlement and obscene debauchery that seems to be “normal” now?”
Hi, Siobhan. I also am a parent of young daughters (two of them).
Here are some partial measures that you and your husband can take that IMO are very, very certain to help.
1) ASAP remove every television set from your house, never to return before your daughter is mid-20s, married, and lives elsewhere.
2) Homeschool her, starting ASAP.
3) Find a church that is “red pill” if at all possible. (Hints on finding: is against female clergy/active homosexual clergy for starters; is VERY strict on female frivorcers and excommunicates them; does not pretend unmarried mothers are morally equal to widowed mothers; is against birth control; considers the Bible a higher authority than anything in the culture).
4) Yourself, keep away from divorced women.
5) Try to keep your daughter away from children as much as possible whose parents are not currently married AND (not “or”) residing in the same household.
6) Chaperone your daughter on dates (which she should only go on when just about ready to find a husband).
7) Teach your daughter domestic skills (include budgeting, nonfun shopping, cooking, cleaning, mending, childhood illness handling, etc.)
8) Do not have your daughter live elsewhere during college, if she even goes.
9) Do not pay for or encourage your daughter to take a liberal arts or anything-studies degree (economically useless waste time/$, plus lots of man-hating taught in those).
10) Discourage her taking on any debt, with the sole exceptions to preserve life or get degrees in engineering/medical fields (at nonprivate colleges), and for latter, make her understand are likely to be instead of marriage and family.
Hope that helps!
@ Dave
Your cynicism knows no bounds. I assure you, not every woman you see walking the street bumps uglies every night.
Blue Pill straw man. The question is, what is the lowest number of sex partners that 90% of women have by age 30? Looks like 5, based on deti’s calcs. So, how do you find the women who are the best risks, having one or zero partners? When you ask them and they tell you one or zero, you simply beleeeeeve? No, I don’t beleeeeve that you have a magical lie detector in your brain. I’ve been married a looooong time and my wife deceived me convincingly, despite me being a very skeptical person. You need to somehow find a lie detector than can be found verifiably accurate.
@Scott, don’t trust that Amish angle, I was raised around those “folks”. Rumspringa isn’t an urban legend.
If a woman is chaste in our current environment, she likely has strong internal inhibitions against sex. Hence, not hot for it and likely a cold fish.
Dave says:
March 25, 2015 at 11:34 am
“I completely fail to understand how any man can spend any time in this community, and at the same time expect a completely truthful answer when they ask a woman for her N.”
I agree with this. My rule, when a women tells me her supposed “N”, is to add three and double it. (No doubling for those under 17, or the VERY ugly.)
“Your cynicism knows no bounds. I assure you, not every woman you see walking the street bumps uglies every night. And, there are still real chaste women out there who are chaste indeed. You cannot only get the information from them, you can observe their mannerrisms, and make up your own mind. And of course, there are lots of “born again virgins” as well. That said, not every single woman who is not a virgin is a slut.”
Yes, but even the truly chaste women are still women in America, and still hypergamous as Hades.
Being sincere Christians mostly just adds more lines to her 673-point “must have” checklist in a man, and does zip to keep her from only considering 6’3″ millionaires via inherited trust-fund/Harvard degree in Law or Medicine male models as potential husbands. Are you one of those?
“Those “nonslutty” women are passing over those men, rejecting those men left and right. So no, men are not rejecting nonslutty women. It’s the other way around – those women reject those men. Women are in the driver’s seat in this society.
See the emphasis above. That mentality is exactly why the women are passing over the (Blue-pilled) men.
The fact is, when you take a stand, and you declare what you are about, you attract those women to you who are willing to work with you, and you repel all others. When you live, talk and act masculine, you will not fail to attract feminine women to you.
When I start dating a woman I make it clear that, if we end up getting married, I expect her to cook and handle the home front. I also tell her I love lots of kids and I would expect to have up to 4 kids. Almost like clockwork, the women either think I am crazy, and stop taking my calls, or they get even more attracted to me, after their customary feeble resistance.”
I liked this part.
“I am currently speaking with an attractive Asian woman now. She is a well educated professional with a doctorate. She is not only eager to come visit and cook for me, she is open to having my 4 kids should we get married.”
Oh, crud. Where to start on what is wrong here… First, if she’s not already here (or at least in W. Europe), odds are she’s not what she claims to be educationally. (A liar’s just what you want, right?)
If she IS a Ph.D., odds are it’s in some fuzzy-studies field that she hasn’t (because it’s virtually impossible since it’s a near-jobless field) paid off her 5-6 digits of school debt, that YOU will have to pay off, instead of getting to be a father (quite possibly forever, if you stay with her).
Oh, and even if her Ph.D. is in Elementary Navel-Lint picking, expect her hypergamy to be through the roof due to it.
And, the time getting a Ph.D. probably makes a woman (though of course not a man) just about too old to even have any biological children (and why marry a woman without GOOD prospects of children?).
Lastly, (cue the “WAYSISSSTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” content-free shrill squeaks from the low-IQ section), your children will resemble her far more than you. That’s culturally, linguistically, and racially/physically. Look, a white and a nonwhite have kids, and they’re all nonwhite, guaranteed. She’ll get to have kids, but YOU won’t get to have any of your own, while you get to pay for it all. You can do THAT just by marrying a white Ameriskank while living in America, who waits on maximizing the eventual child support by holding off on the inevitable twat-filed frivorce until she’s birthed a child or three.
No. Just don’t.
Stay unmarried and don’t EVER cohabitate either.
If you want kids, pay the 60-80K to have a fertility clinic, egg donors, and a gestational surrogate provide them for you (they’ll be your blood, just as much as if you tried to give an Ameriskank a white picket fenced house and all). Pay for the household help you need (mainly a nanny during 8-5 M-F); it’ll be way cheaper than child support, I promise, and won’t be wasted on purses, tummy tucks, cosmetics, Harlequin collections, and a boob job for appreciation by the (probably unemployed) “new daddy” that moves into your bed post-divorce.
If you MUST marry, get the kids first via the above procedure, get a vasectomy, and THEN marry, never letting her adopt your kids. You’ll never lose your children to a faithless burning-at-the-stake-escapee that way.
‘Have you all started reading the Song of Solomon yet to see how it is filled with Game principles?’
I’ve read Song of Solomon. The greater point of it was to describe the type of love God has for his people is just as intimate as what goes on between a husband and wife.
@GBFM –
“Did you find this Christian wisdom in Genesis? In Exodus? In Matthew? Did Jesus teach, “You need to know if she’s sexually attracted to you from the get go, because that’s one of the pillars of a marriage relationship. Marriage is a sexual relationship.?””
The marriage in Genesis, Exodus, Matthew, or spoken by Jesus doesn’t exist anymore. All protections and necessities were given by the husband to the wife in marriage. The covenant has become sour. If you don’t believe me, divorce your wife and find out that you will give more to your ex-wife than you ever did in marriage.
And by the way GBFM, don’t you know the great books for men are now “50 Shades of Grey”, “Eat, Pray, Love”, and anything that was once on Oprah’s now-defunct book club?
‘If a woman is chaste in our current environment, she likely has strong internal inhibitions against sex. Hence, not hot for it and likely a cold fish.’
What if she wants to save her hots for her husband only? Besides there’s no such thing as virtue without being tested.
Luke– “Lastly, (cue the “WAYSISSSTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” content-free shrill squeaks from the low-IQ section)”
With Dave, the racist label is only a matter of time now.
Granted I get being naive about all women isn’t a good way to go…but I don’t get how be cynical about all women is a good way to go either. If you assume they are all sluts, it wouldn’t matter what a girl does if she tells you she’s chaste and a virgin. You’ll find all sorts of ways to poke holes in it.
Most of us know the signs of promiscuous women, most gals will have no shame showing that off…so strike them out if you see them. Then make a judgement call as you get to know the ones who don’t have the telltale signs of promiscuity.
Siobhan @ March 24, 2015 at 2:58 pm:
“And, apart from cherishing her childhood and not permitting influences that sexualize girls so very young, I’m just not sure what to do in this world gone mad.”
There are two things you can profitably do. One, raise her with the expectation that your husband will pick out two or three young men and she will marry one of them post-high school. There’s no legal way to enforce this in California, of course, but if she’s raised to simply expect it then she’s likely to go along with it. The lesson can be hammered home, if needed, by pointing to unmarried women beginning to panic on their 30th birthday and how your daughter will never be in danger of spinsterhood. San Francisco is loaded with suitable, scary examples. Use them.
Two and more importantly, demonstrate wifely submission and obedience to your daughter. Obey him, speak well of him to others and let your daughter know that the phrase “my husband wouldn’t like that” or “Daddy said no” is the End of Any Argument. (Incidentally, you personally can get a lot of use out of this. Try “my husband wouldn’t like that” on the next pushy salesman you encounter.)
For Christian wives, submission should be reassuring not confining. You don’t need to make decisions and carry responsibilities that Christ never intended you to carry. If your daughter sees you drawing strength and authority from your husband’s leadership then she’ll look for that from her future husband. Never underestimate the power of a good example; that’s why our Elites try so hard to destroy fatherhood.
As far as a woman being hot for you helping in the long run, been there done that. Soon to be ex certainly appeared to be hot for me during courtship, she is the one that pushed the physical relationship. Then marriage and kids, and she left me for someone she knew before she even met me. If she is hot for you, she can be hot for others.
For LTR I would trying to suss out character more than looking for interest. There needs to be some interest on her part, but whatever she is giving to you she has already given to others, you are not the first love with almost any of them. They have been there done that.
Now I do know of one case where a pastor divorced his wife after a few years of marriage. In that case, due to her background, she was not capable of being with anyone due to abuse. N=0, and there it will stay. Now the pastor knew that going in, thought it would get better, and well…
@Earl, I don’t think that it’s cynical to see the world as the Bible describes it, I think it’s realistic and honest. As it was in the days of Noah so shall also shall it be in the days of the Son of man? Yeah, not a lot of room for optimism on the humanity front there.
What I’m talking about is if a woman says she’s chaste and a virgin…you immediately think of ways she is lying because of the general lack of morals in today’s women. You have to go on a case by case basis.
For me if I see a tattoo she’s out. If she drinks a lot or does drugs, she’s out. If she hates men and children, she’s out. A lot of promiscuous women have such telltale signs the only way you miss them is if you overlook them.
If a woman says she is chaste and a virgin in this day and age I’m going to assume she is a liar without tangible proof to the contrary. By their fruits you will know them.
Tangible BEHAVIORAL proof.
I’ve had two women friends, for many years, who I suspect were still virgins into their 30s and 40s. Neither ever married. But more than that, it was their body language and “vibes.” I got the sense that neither was interested in sex, at all, with anyone.
There are asexual women out there, having no sexual desires. Probably more asexual women than asexual men in this world.
I “dated” one of them, which morphed into “hanging out” as friends. She enjoyed seeing me. I think these two women wanted to date men partially because it’s what we do in society. Pair up and go places together. But for them men were like “beards.” They wanted normalcy, to appear normal, to have a male companion, but without the sex. The excuse they offer to avoid sex is that they’re “saving themselves for marriage.”
I don’t know how many asexual women there are out there. But they might make loyal wives, if a man were desperate enough to marry without sex. Sort of like all those women who, in the past, married gay husbands seeking normalcy.
Guys on this site are entrenched in their cynicism.
*The Asian girl is a pharmacist, and she just turned 30, though she looks much younger. And yes, she lives here in the US. She migrated here some years ago for graduate studies.
May I say one thing: what you expect is what you’ll get. If you expect that all the girls that you meet are sluts and unfit for marriage, I guarantee you, those are the only ones that you’ll attract.
It will always be to you accordingn to your faith, not necessarily according to God’s riches.
To receive God’s best, you must expect His best:
I would have despaired unless I had believed that I would see the goodness of the LORD In the land of the living.
Psalm 27:13
He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the LORD
Proverbs 18:22
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Hebrews 11:6
And, No, not all women saving themselves for marriage are asexual. Some folks actually respect God’s word, an are committed to obeying him.
Yes, Scott, I didn’t know you noticed: it’s all racism!
Dave says:
March 25, 2015 at 1:14 pm
“The Asian girl is a pharmacist, and she just turned 30, though she looks much younger. And yes, she lives here in the US. She migrated here some years ago for graduate studies.”
Her eggs have still been going downhill for close to half her life; this is independent of “how young she looks” (it’s routine for Asian chicks to look younger for a few years just because they’re not usually blimps, and tend to have tiny boobs). The age at which women’s eggs start having ever-higher odds of giving you a Downs baby due to advancing age? NINETEEN.
She’s also guaranteed to have picked up awareness of the U.S. divorce/kangaroo court system, and probably no little bit of cultural influence. (Check to see if she has a television set or liberal magazines/newspapers in her apartment; any = culturally corrupted at least to some degree.)
So, worst of both worlds, except there’ll be no need for you to pay for an English-whatever language she speaks interpreter at your frivorce hearing.
Median means that half of the women have less than 3 partners and half have more. That’s wrong by Biblical standards but 3 or less is not promiscuous. Men who end up with sluts like slutty women and are passing over a lot of nonslutty women (not virgins but not sluts either ) to be with them. Only a very foolish man ends up married to a promiscuous woman.
Some one may have already pointed this out, but in the US a marriage where the woman is N = 3 statistically has about a 40% success rate for being stable vs a 75% success rate with a virgin bride. There is something to those Biblical standards.
I would still be very cautious about becoming one with a slut. Her consequences become his consequences.
This is sound advice, but your definition of a slut is questionable IMO.
@GBFM taking on the great Deti: “What Deti is saying is that marriage is based not upon a covenant, nor the Word of God, nor the Law of Moses, nor the Wisdom of Jesus, not wedding vows, but upon the gina tingle:
This is Deti pointing out reality. Methinks the Great Books is still in the matrix, at least marginally.
“If ever a woman is not sexually attracted to a man, she can blow up the marriage. Such is what the Churchian teaches. ‘
The statement is true. Isn’t it a good idea to believe truth? We may not like it but if you take the Red Pill you will see that what we like is not always the way it is.
@silobahn: “Is there a resource for what to do, or not do, when raising a young girl (she’s preteen, in elementary school), in order to avoid this senseless entitlement and obscene debauchery that seems to be “normal” now?”
You can try this question on /r/redpillparenting or /r/redpillwoman, probably the parenting one but it is poorly attended I’m told. Some of the dads on /r/marriedredpill might have some ideas also. Finally, some women who post here have their own web sites and can probably answer better.
I would recommend two books: “The Surrendered Wife” and “Fascinating Womanhood” to better model the behavior you want for your daughters.
Indications of potential high N (or at least that she’s a nonvirgin):
9. Was raised in the US, Canada, or the UK.
“I think that women with high N counts can be detected from space with the right instruments.”
Yes, there are lots of other (related) questions that you can ask that will give you an answer without giving away the real question (e.g. N). The list by deti is a good start. In fact, they’d have to answer each of the questions perfectly to be considered. (Also, I recall a study that stated that friendship is fairly associative – if her friends are promiscuous, there’s a much higher chance that she is (or will be) too.)
—
@thedeti
You can add a few things to that list:
-Was ever in the military
-Clothing types
-Foul language
-College major (best to worst: STEM -> liberal arts)
-Porn use*
—
*I recall a story where a guy made some changes to a woman’s network such that all URLs were recorded – he found that the polite, Latin Mass-going, skirt-wearing girl actually had a thing for quite extreme porn.
Thank you, very much, to all the posters who responded with advice. I truly appreciate it, and will investigate further. I appreciate the gift of your time and judgement.
What about if the woman was a Doctor, in the military, as part of her residency (so an officer and an MD, rather than an enlisted person)? Is she still a red flag?
Sluttery has no respect for profession. As Earl wrote earlier however, it must be case by case basis. There are genuine people in the military.
I once met a military woman who was a doctor. She was also a devoted Catholic, and attended Mass regularly. I almost never met a more feminine woman in my entire existence. She readily told me that she was not a virgin, even without being asked. But she exuded femininity through every pore in her body.
She told me stories of how most of her fellow soldiers were unfaithful to their spouses, that it was a rampant behavior among them. From the way she spoke she disapproved of the behavior.
@Earl: Sorry to say bro, your dogma has crippled you in ways the Lord never intended. The early church intended exactly that, but not the Lord, IMHO. Please take the time to read the Song of Solomon. Were the Beloved and the Lover even married? Face it, perpetual virgins, pornography, and masturbation may be church traditions and prohibitions but these concept ARE NOT Holy Scripture. Hard core dread, blowjobs, swallowing, women dripping to the floor, scatology and anal play ARE Holy Scripture.
That was a keeper Dave
You could probably also add:
-Media consumed (e.g. TV shows – this is not as fail-safe as other things, though)
-Endorsement of feminism
-Tattoos, piercings, etc on parents and siblings.
-Other examples of novelty-seeking or high impulsiveness (e.g. extreme sports)
—
I’m again reminded of this classic thread from CAF: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=823388
Particularly starting on page 11, with the comments by “57th Dimension.”
@ earl
The greater point of it was to describe the type of love God has for his people is just as intimate as what goes on between a husband and wife.
Spiritualizing bull5h1t. Just like the Alexandrian heretics. Learn how to read.
“What about if the woman was a Doctor, in the military, as part of her residency (so an officer and an MD, rather than an enlisted person)? Is she still a red flag?”
Statistically, military service is correlated with higher N in men and women.
That said, different areas are going to have women of different levels of promiscuity. The example you provided is likely going to be a safer case.
Sez Dave:
Your cynicism knows no bounds.
“The power of accurate observation is commonly called ‘cynicism’ by those who have not got it.” ~ George Bernard Shaw
Indeed.
‘Spiritualizing bull5h1t. Just like the Alexandrian heretics. Learn how to read.’
I know how to read.
‘Christians admitted the canonicity of the Song of Songs from the beginning, but after Jewish exegetes began to read the Song allegorically, as having to do with God’s love for his people, Christian exegetes followed suit, treating the love that it celebrates as an analogy for the love between God and the Church.This Christian allegorical interpretation began with Origen in the 2nd century C.E.’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_of_Songs
The Bible is a spiritual book, the only thing a man can do (on his own) is carnalize it.
@ earl
So Christian heretics followed the example of Jewish heretics–big deal. Origen is a well-known heretic, despite being a church historian. Bad example to follow for Bible-reading.
@ GIL
The Bible is a spiritual book, the only thing a man can do (on his own) is carnalize it.
Idk, my Bible seems pretty solid.
VIRGINITY IS OVERRATED; SLUTTERY IS OVERUSED
Personally, I think the quest of some folks here to find a virgin to marry is commendable, but they are missing the bigger picture. Viginity is overrated. In the same vein, guys are
misapplying the S word to every woman who is not a virgin. That, in my opinion, is misguided.
Yeah, I know, folks will probably come up in arms to skewer me, maybe Dave is Pastor Driscoll in disguise. No, I am not Driscoll, and I do not promote sluttery in any way. As a matter of
fact, I got married at age 27. I was a virgin, and a college graduate. Of course, my ex was not, and I held that over her head for a while. Much later God had to convict me of that self-
righteous stance.
The following are facts:
1. If you are not a virgin yourself, you really have no right to expect to marry a virgin. I mean, this is a no brainer. Looking for a virgin to marry when you have played the field is nothing
short of mega-hypocrisy, and is inexcusable of anyone who claims to be a Christian.
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do
the same things. Romans 2:1
If you are not a virgin but reject non-virgins as a spouse, you are a hypocrite.
2. Even if you are a virgin, you do not deserve to have a virgin bride. Yep, that was not a typo. The operative term here is deserve.
None of us deserves anything other than eternal damnation. Yes, you may not be a fornicator. But are you a liar? Proud? Uncharitable? Speaks evil of those in authority in the name of “free
speech”? If so, you are just as guilty before God:
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it
James 2:10
If you have ever committed any sin in your life, you are as guilty as a fornicator.
3. God is not obligated to provide you a virgin bride, because He never promised you one. I challenge any man here to go find a single promise in the Bible where God said He would provide
them a virgin bride. There is none.
God promised to supply all your needs according to His riches in glory, if you trust Him. Marrying a virgin bride is a want, not a need. having a wife may meet your need, but you don’t need
a vigin bride to meet that need.
He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the LORD. Proverbs 18:22
4. Throughout Scripture, God encouraged men to marry both virgin and nonvirgin brides, provided certain guidelines are followed. God is not fazed by the fact that your wife has previously
been with another man before you met her.
If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of
a brother-in-law to her. Deuteronomy 25:5
“Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him. Matthew 22:24
5. Irrespective of the sin anyone may have committed, what is most important is repentance. Genuine, heartfelt repentance accompanied by godly sorrow and faith in Christ will wipe away
every stain, including the sin of fornication. And when God forgives, He forgets:
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.1 John 1:7
For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more Jeremiah 31:34
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
6. It is wrong to claim to be self-righteous, and hold someone’s sin over their heads when God has forgiven them, just because your own sins are different than theirs.
Brothers and sisters, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister or judges them speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you–who are you to judge your neighbor?
James 4:11-12
7. More importantly, being self-righteous can rob us of God’s fellowship and forgiveness, with fatal consequences.
In the parable of the Prodigal Son, a careful reading will show that the sins of the elder brother was just as bad as those of the prodigal son. But only one of them genuinely repented and got reconciled to their father; only one of them enjoyed the company of their father; and only one of them needed no preaching to. And it was not the elder brother.
8. A whole lot of men in this forum are robbing themselves of a more fulfilling life because of their self righteousness. They have condemned all nonvirgin single women to the category of Sluts. THEN, they turned around and claim that there are no more good girls left in America. Even if they met a chaste girl who told them so, they are simply too entrenched in their unbelief to accept the fact. Since there is no way to for them to confirm the woman’s chastity, they must continue in their self-imposed, involuntary singleness.
Again, lest anyone misunderstood my stance here: I am not saying “hurry up and marry these sluts”, but rather, to look for a woman who has had an encounter with Christ and whose life has been transformed, even if their pasts were not perfect.
Therefore, accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God. Romans 15:7
pm
FWI to Dave:
1) Premarital sexual experience is clearly a negative for a woman’s ability to be a good, faithful wife (and thus mother). It is not nearly so-clear cut for a man wishing to become a husband and father to have had PSE, even a lot of it in most cases. Men and women are not the same — whoda thunk it?
2) God may forgive the genuinely repentant slut (both of them) (defined here as NOT sending her to eternal hellfire after death). That however does not make her fit to be taken as a wife, nor confers any obligation on good men to ever take her as one. Indeed, the traditional respectable, appropriate end for such fallen women is as nuns or the equivalent humble, poorly-paid, hard-laboring work that brings no marriage, child-bearing, power over others (especially men or moral women) nor sex to such women. I approve.
Dave:
You’re divorced. Why? What happened?
FWI to Dave:
1) Premarital sexual experience is clearly a negative for a woman’s ability to be a good, faithful wife (and thus mother). It is not nearly so-clear cut for a man wishing to become a husband and father to have had PSE, even a lot of it in most cases. Men and women are not the same — whoda thunk it?
2) God may forgive the genuinely repentant slut (both of them) (defined here as NOT sending her to eternal hellfire after death). That however does not make her fit to be taken as a wife, nor confers any obligation on good men to ever take her as one. Indeed, the traditional respectable, appropriate end for such fallen women is as nuns or the equivalent humble, poorly-paid, hard-laboring work that brings no marriage, child-bearing, power over others (especially men or moral women) nor sex to such women. I approve.
I believe you are a Christian. Show me from the Word of God that your assertions are, indeed, true and biblical.
I don’t buy the argument that men and women must be judged through different standards of morality. The Bible condemns fornication. It did not differentiate between the genders. When God forgives a genuinely repentant sinner, He restores them into fellowship with Himself, and restores “their souls”. So, all the fragmentation that illicit sex has done to their souls, all the ungodly soul ties, etc are broken, and a wholesome soul is created for them and in them. They are as fit to become spouses and parents as if they never sinned. And this applies both to the male and the female.
Dave:
You’re divorced. Why? What happened?
Long story, but in summary I was a victim of a churchian pastor who masqueraded as a minister of light.
‘Personally, I think the quest of some folks here to find a virgin to marry is commendable, but they are missing the bigger picture.’
I’d replace virginity with chastity. Every woman is a virgin to start out…but in this society few are chaste.
‘In many Christian traditions, chastity is synonymous with sexual purity. Chastity means not having any sexual relations before marriage. It also means fidelity to husband or wife during marriage. In Catholic morality, chastity is placed opposite the deadly sin of lust, and is classified as one of seven virtues. The moderation of sexual desires is required to be virtuous. Reason, will and desire can harmoniously work together to do what is good.’
Dave
Avoiding a slut and advising other men too, along with giving ideas on how to spot one is an act of kindness and brotherhood. The men here are either married or divorced with children unless stated otherwise. Todays world doesn’t give men the luxury of following a traditional script. men today have to do all of the dirty work too. Society and culture used to handle the uncomfortable stuff (female nature and all that it entails) spoken about here, now each and every man has to learn and understand these things. Reality does kill the romance of the beautiful woman doesn’t. Also makes playing Christian man a tough masculine job. Not as romantic and nice either.
Dave:
A few thoughts.
1. None of the men here have said that nonvirgins are worthless, irredeemable, or even that they must never marry. All that’s said here is that nonvirgins aren’t as sexually or relationally valuable as virgins. All that’s said here is that nonvirgins can’t marry men who want to marry virgins. All that’s said here is that sluts cannot marry men who want to marry nonsluts and who don’t want sluts as wives.
2. It’s not about whether men deserve virgins. It’s not even about whether any men here deserve virgins. No one here claims to “deserve” a virgin. What’s been said is that virgins are preferable and more valuable as wives.
3. No one here is claiming God owes them a virgin bride. That’s a common trope feminists use to shame men.
4. The scriptures you cited regarding men being exhorted to marry nonvirgins pertain to men marrying WIDOWS. There’s a world of difference between a woman who has had sex with a number of men outside marriage; and a woman who had sex with a husband who died, all through no fault of the widow. God said “care for the widows and orphans”. He did NOT say “care for the widows, orphans, and harlots”.
If you had wanted a scriptural reference to support your claim, you might have referred to Rahab. However, Rahab was brought into Israel and married into the Davidic ancestral line only AFTER her full and complete repentance, and her absorption into Hebrew life and culture, which required her utter submission and obedience. We’re not told anything, however, about the quality of her subsequent marriage after her rescue from Jericho.
5. The concern over marrying sluts, even reformed sluts who have come to Christ, is that even true conversion does NOT mean the woman is a good marriage prospect. These women still have trouble bonding. Many are alpha widows. They all have baggage consisting of anger; resentments; neuroses; anxieties; thought and behavior patterns which are the result of relationships, interactions and sexual encounters with past lovers; sexual diseases; infertility; rebellion, refusal to submit and accept a position as “wife” and not “co-captain”; and the list goes on and on.
The concern is about whether the woman is a good potential wife. The fact that she is an observant Christian does NOT erase her past. It does NOT remove all the consequences. Her faith in Christ does NOT mean she will find you sexually attractive. It does NOT mean you will get a good sex life out of her. It does NOT mean she will love you or even like you.
Dalrock:
Thanks for your forbearance and patience with my participation on this thread. I have been blunt, pointed, and vigorous in advancing my views, and I tend to step on toes. Thanks for allowing my comments on this.
Dave
They are as fit to become spouses and parents as if they never sinned. And this applies both to the male and the female.
You are the one making assertions that do not line up with pre-sexual revolution Christian thought. Even as late as the 1970s most everyone knew that it was not a good idea to marry used goods. You are the one who needs to provide evidence that “They are as fit to become spouses and parents as if they never sinned.” Frankly, I don’t see it.
Given how Jesus pretty much only gave men one out as far as marriage…I can see why the disciples responded.
“If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.”
And even though men had more of the backing of society…even they reasoned in that case it was better not to marry. Based off the law and their hearts. So it isn’t bad advice if a guy says it’s better not to marry.
More on the context of this:
‘if the case of a man be so with his wife; if they are so closely joined together in marriage; if they are, as it were, one flesh, or one body, that a man’s wife is himself: that the bond between them is so inviolable, that it is not to be dissolved, but in case of adultery; that if a separation be made by a bill of divorce, in any other case, and either party marry again, they are guilty of adultery; if a man cannot part with his wife lawfully, provided she be chaste, and is faithful to his bed, let her be what she will otherwise, though ever so disagreeable in her person, and troublesome in her behaviour; though she may be passionate, and a brawler; though she may be drunken, luxurious, and extravagant, and mind not the affairs of her family, yet if she is not an adulteress, must not be put away:
it is not good to marry; it would be more expedient and advisable for a man to live always a single life, than to run the risk of marrying a woman, that may prove very disagreeable and uncomfortable; to whom he must be bound all the days of his or her life, and, in such a case, not to be able to relieve and extricate himself. This they said under the prejudice of a national law and custom, which greatly prevailed, and under the influence of a carnal heart.’
thedeti,
I actually agree with most of what you wrote above. My original point was to address the religiosity with which some folks wrote about truly repentant nonvirgins, and their speed in applying the Slut categorization to any woman who is not a virgin. At the same time, they appear to be soft on the men with similar life histories.
Again, the trouble, as I see it, is lack of true conversion. No one who has truly repented of their sinful ways will be proud of the sins they just repented of. What is so common these days are reformed but unconverted sluts who are all too eager to play the “Don’t judge me” card.
@asdgamer; “Idk, my Bible seems pretty solid.”
What about the “words” that are in it? Consider John 1 very carefully, and spiritually.
Long story, but in summary I was a victim of a churchian pastor who masqueraded as a minister of light.
And the promiscuous ex-wife was innocent to be sure.
Dave:
“their speed in applying the Slut categorization to any woman who is not a virgin. At the same time, they appear to be soft on the men with similar life histories.”
Differentiating between men who have had a lot of partners and women who have had a lot of partners actually has some basis in the science. It’s pretty clear that whether men have had a lot of premarital sex partners doesn’t have much effect on divorce risk. In stark contrast, women who have had a lot of partners have a much, much higher divorce risk. Even ONE premarital sex partner in a woman increases the divorce risk to 1 in 2 — 50%.
“Again, the trouble, as I see it, is lack of true conversion. No one who has truly repented of their sinful ways will be proud of the sins they just repented of. What is so common these days are reformed but unconverted sluts who are all too eager to play the “Don’t judge me” card.”
Yeah, the women who haven’t really converted are easy enough to spot and Dalrock has talked about them before. But the point is that even if a woman really, truly has come to faith, she can be, and usually still is, a poor marriage risk. My experience is that even true converts are still severely damaged, and need a massive amount of work and therapy to get even to the point of “acceptable” marriage risk.
And, Dave, sorry to hear of the problems with your ex and past ministers. That’s a rough one right there.
I apologize for my glibness Dave. It just occurs to me in this discussion of the repentance in women that your wife and life experiences don’t seem like examples of success. I have made my mistakes in this arena as well and I’m sorry for all of us that the consequences are so crushing.
‘ It’s pretty clear that whether men have had a lot of premarital sex partners doesn’t have much effect on divorce risk.’
Perhaps the risk of him doing the divorce is lower…but I bet he’s still a high risk for the woman to divorce. How much trust is she going to give him if he has that type of past? Would it be more than the trust a man would give a promiscous woman?
Maybe a valid question is “What does a truly repentant revirgin look like”?
Do they have to turn away from lifestyle, including Western media, divorcee and slut culture, Jezebellian churchianity, egalitarianism?
My answer would be all of the above. Now find the woman who has committed to turning her back on all of that.
Earl:
And we circle back around to where we were yesterday around this time.
If he has that “type of past”, he will be a sexually attractive man. Women are more likely to remain to and with, and commit to, a man she’s sexually attracted to. In terms of relationship security, the level of trust she has for him, and her potential squeamishness about his past sexual history, matter a lot less than his sexual attractiveness.
I know from interacting with certain women around the ‘sphere that this is the case.
Dave @ 3:05 pm:
“In the parable of the Prodigal Son, a careful reading will show that the sins of the elder brother was just as bad as those of the prodigal son.”
How in the world did you get that? Look again at the father’s response. Everything the father owned now belonged to the loyal son exclusively. The prodigal was forgiven and welcome in the father’s house but would not be given a second inheritance.
There are TWO morals to the parable: The Father will forgive your sins but there will also be consequences. Those who sin away in this world forfeit the grace that could be theirs in the next one, even after they’re fully forgiven.
@ GIL
What about the “words” that are in it?
I’m confused. Are we discussing a book or the words in it? And which book specifically? A particular compiled text or a particular translation, maybe? Or are we talking about an approach to take when reading Scripture? As in one suggested by Gordon Fee, maybe?
http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Bible-All-Worth/dp/0310246040
Do we pay attention to the type of literature of the book? As in Genesis, which generally is to be read historically, or a prophetic book like Isaiah, which is to be read a lot more figuratively? Or the Song of Solomon, which is a play of sorts, and is to be read as exemplary? Do you equate “spiritual” with “allegorical”?
God is Laughing says:
March 25, 2015 at 4:10 pm
“Maybe a valid question is “What does a truly repentant revirgin look like”?
Do they have to turn away from lifestyle, including Western media, divorcee and slut culture, Jezebellian churchianity, egalitarianism?
My answer would be all of the above. Now find the woman who has committed to turning her back on all of that.”
My expectation for a good indicator of such a woman is one who would VOLUNTEER for a very harsh prenup, one that left her with the shirt on her back and nothing else if she frivorced her husband, or by deadbedding/adultery gave him grounds to divorce her, made as ironclad as possible. Better yet, for her to volunteer for the couple to live in a foreign country where female-filed frivorce was either impossible or brought no goodies and lost her any children. Any ex-slut Wall-terrified unmarried American women reading this willing to offer a potential husband (of the MMV they can reasonably aspire to, NOT a cross between young Brad Pitt and Bill Gates)?
**crickets**
@ deti
The Lover in the Song of Solomon is a lot more like a PUA than like a churchian beta glorying in his self-righteousness.
@asdgamer Jesus explained why He used parables to His disciples. 1 Cor. 1:19.
If you read the Gospel of John you will understand why I airquoted “words”. Allegorical suffers from the poverty of being interpreted by men. We know from 1 John 2:27 that manmade systemic theology is unnecessary. If this part in particular is confusing to you it is probably because you have not been taught by the Holy Spirit.
And I would add concerning the Holy Spirit, have you asked? If not the Lord “upbraideth not” 1 James 1:5. (I often do).
“In the parable of the Prodigal Son, a careful reading will show that the sins of the elder brother was just as bad as those of the prodigal son.”
How in the world did you get that? Look again at the father’s response. Everything the father owned now belonged to the loyal son exclusively. The prodigal was forgiven and welcome in the father’s house but would not be given a second inheritance.
Actually, the sins of the elder brother were many and grievious as well, and he did not find reconciliation at the end of the parable.
We both agree that the prodigal son was truly wayward. Here are some of the sins of the elder brother:
1. Refusal to accept his repentant brother into the family. He never called him “my brother”. He called him “this your son”.
2. Blaming his father for being unjust and unfair: his father had not rewarded him enough for his many labors in his own opinion
3. Cutting off fellowship from his father: he stayed outside of the party, forcing his father to go look for him like a wayward son
4. Being unhappy about what gladdened his father’s heart: according to him, his father had no reason to be glad at the return of his wayward son.
When the Prodigal son returned, he was accepted fully as a son of the father (vs 24), and as a brother to the faithful son (see vs 27, 32 of Luke 15 where the father pointedly corrected the elder brother, and referred to the prodigal son as “thy brother”). His sin was not remembered again. We did not read that the elder brother went inside or that he acceptd his father’s explanations.
I apologize for my glibness Dave. It just occurs to me in this discussion of the repentance in women that your wife and life experiences don’t seem like examples of success.
No offence taken at all. I wish things ended up differently, but they didn’t. The only thing I am grateful for is that I am still standing. That was one experience that would have turned me into a radical atheist. But better sense prevailed. And it was many years ago, actually.
Deti, good to hear.
‘Women are more likely to remain to and with, and commit to, a man she’s sexually attracted to.’
Do you take commitment as marriage…as in they are more likely to marry a man they are sexually attracted to? Or do you mean something else when it comes to commitment?
Deti Genesis:
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee, to the degree he games you and makes your gina go tinzgzzlolzozozozozoz.
Deti Matthew:
3The Pharisees (Detis) also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh so long as he makes her gina go tingzzlzoozlzozozozoz during the dating period? 6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh, so as aas he maketh her gina tingzlzozozlolzolzolz. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder unless her gina stops tingzlzlzzizlzizlzzizlz. 7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. But if the wife’s gina fails to tinzgzlzozzizlzozoz she can file for divorce and take the children and home and pension and savings, for such is the gospel of the Deti.
Deti Exodus:
Thou shalt not commit adultery. (unless you are a woman whose gina has stopped going tingzzlzlzgzzlzlolzlzlzoz. then shalt ye transform yer husband into a beta bucks atm machine and seek gina tingzlzlzozzo elsewhere)
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, unless thy neighbor doesn’t make her gina go tinzgzlzlzlzooloz in which case butztzhetxtz is righeous, godly, and good.
Dave @ 4:52 pm:
“1. Refusal to accept his repentant brother into the family. He never called him “my brother”. He called him “this your son”.”
How is this a refusal to accept his brother’s return? Acknowledging the prodigal as his father’s son is certainly an acknowledgment of brotherhood, if perhaps a reluctant one.
“2. Blaming his father for being unjust and unfair: his father had not rewarded him enough for his many labors in his own opinion”
His father *was* being unjust and unfair. The prodigal had turned his back on the family and so deserved nothing. The prodigal himself knew it; why else did he try to return as a servant?
God’s people have been frustrated with God’s kindness towards the wicked throughout the Bible. It is no sin to be angry at seeing evil rewarded and good neglected or punished. That’s why this parable is important, because it puts God’s easy forgiveness in perspective.
“3. Cutting off fellowship from his father: he stayed outside of the party, forcing his father to go look for him like a wayward son”
Not attending an event is a timeless form of protest. That’s all this is.
“4. Being unhappy about what gladdened his father’s heart: according to him, his father had no reason to be glad at the return of his wayward son.”
He’s a loyal son, not a clone. Having a different opinion than his father is no sin and who do you think did the prodigal’s work after he left?
The loyal son did nothing wrong. He saw his father forgiving and celebrating his exceptionally irresponsible brother while taking his dutiful, hard work more or less for granted. That upset him and for good reason so his father pointed out the loyal son’s inheritance was still intact and explained the party was to celebrate the prodigal’s safe return, not his life of wasteful indulgence.
Today, promiscuous women can be forgiven but that does not make them equal to virgins any more than the prodigal son being forgiven returned his misspent inheritance.
@deti
Number 2 is also a feminist trope and, unsurprisingly, one that is frequently repeated on CAF and by other Catholic bloggers. In most cases it’s a few fallacies in one statement (e.g. ad hominem and strawman – basically, fallacies of diversion).
As always, how women feel about unchivalrous dirtbags…
http://www.mindingthecampus.com/2015/03/the-rape-epidemic-on-campus-does-not-exist/
And, speaking of feminist lunacy:
Actually, here’s the whole thing: http://twitchy.com/2015/03/24/epic-mocking-in-progress-of-feminist-groups-call-to-replace-clapping-with-jazz-hands-to-prevent-anxiety/
MarcusD
From the link: Upside: we now know feminists can be trolled by simply clapping at them.
They make it too easy.
the feminist garden is in full bloom…
This is classic! And, this guy even paid for dinner…for three dates. Look what it got him. http://www.feministing.org/p82
And, the above link archived for those who don’t like clicking live links: https://archive.today/7EK8T
Is Dave unfamiliar with 1 Corinthians 7:38?
“So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.” NIV
There is no gender reverse of this verse, it’s *gender specific*. Various biblical patriarchs had numerous wives. Wives with numerous husbands biblically were simply adulterous. Men and women are not the same.
A man must trust a woman’s chastity to even know who’s children she gives birth to!
Also it’s clear from the words of Christ in Matthew 19 and the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 that singleness is preferable for men, especially for men. Not just because of the cause of the gospel but because marriage then and now has a likelihood of difficulty, especially for men (1 Cor 7:38) and the considerable possibility of being a living hell on earth. Marrying a reformed slut can only increase the likelihood of sexlessness, contention and manipulation on the part of a wife.
In Matthew 19 Christ clearly forbids marriage to a previously married woman who was not released from her marriage. If a woman who actually committed to marriage but changed her mind is off limits would Christ recommend marriage to a harlot who just gave sex out like candy to her boyfriend(s)? I don’t see how. The sad reality is that modern Christian culture is gutter trash, it’s absolutely disgusting how far morals have fallen in the last few decades among those who attend church. American Christians are an international joke by and large and deserve to be. This is the apostate church that denise the power of God.
Men who fornicate sin in the eyes of God. Women who fornicate sin in the eyes of God and are unfit for marriage. I don’t know how we fix it now. “Christianity” in America is largely a failure.
Dave, in the not so distant past shaming women as sluts and whores and the consequences of their bad choices were the only things that kept the knees of ravenous young women together. Removing the same is how we got where we’re at now. I expect nothing less than MGTOW or societal collapse will take us back now.
Dave quoted a proverb about wives -18:22 – He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the Lord. It seems to be a favorite but there’s several more you may have missed;
Proverbs
19:13 – A foolish son is ruin to his father, and a wife’s quarreling is a continual dripping of rain.
21:9 – It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife.
21:19 – [It is] better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.
25:24 – It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife.
27:15 – A continual dripping on a rainy day and a quarrelsome wife are alike;
Thats 5 to 1 as I count it.
According to a study released this month by Northeastern University in Boston, nonverbal cues such as smiling are sexist.
The study’s aim was to find types of sexism that are not readily apparent. Psychologist Jin Goh explained, “While many people are sensitive to sexist verbal offences, they may not readily associate sexism with warmth and friendliness.”
http://thepunditpress.com/2015/03/25/smiling-at-women-is-sexist-study-concludes/
Two questions about troubled marriage
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=952891
Divorce be the end for my soul?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=952955
husband doesn’t care if others look
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=952962
And another one:
Marriage problems
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=953006
—
So much excellent spouse-picking.
the feminist garden is in full bloom…
Nobody being burned at the stake just yet…….
‘Men who fornicate sin in the eyes of God. Women who fornicate sin in the eyes of God and are unfit for marriage.’
If you want to know why marriage numbers are going down I suspect this is a big cause. Women delaying marriage is one thing…women being unfit for marriage is probably the bigger reason.
If a man can handle it, it’s better for him to be single for the sake of the Lord. Women used to have something to offer to make it a tougher decision for him to stay single. In this day and age I would say it’s relatively easier for men to stay single.
Sorry Ms Ma but feminist deconstructed courtship and marriage. Now, there’s increasingly less of both and certainly no such thing as a free lunch (or dinner) anymore. Ass, gas, or grass; nobody rides for free. Write it down. Make a note of it.
‘So much excellent spouse-picking.’
So she knew he was a drinker, said mean things, and watched porn before marriage. That’s certainly not a guy who is good marriage material.
‘Why did I marry him? We love each other.’
Huh????
Perhaps deti is onto something about women overlooking this stuff because of sexual attraction or wanting to get married or something to that effect…but over the course of time they can’t overlook it forever. That’s why character matters more in the long run over sexual attraction. This goes for both sexes.
@ Patrick, March 25 at 10:25 pm
Feministing.org is a parody site. The original/real site is Feministing.com.
Feministing.com was founded by Jessica Valenti, who seems to be a feminist troll. So I suppose you could argue that a parody of a troll is close to reality.
If woman want to go out and paid, is just ask a guy for intelligent conversation and paid the tip on a pre date is that ok ?
She tells herself she’ll change him, and then she’ll have the best of both worlds: a stud who gets her hot but who also always remembers her birthday, never cheats on her, and takes out the garbage without being asked. And as a bonus, if she’s a church girl, she gets major missionary points for having saved a sinner (the 100th lost sheep, ya know) instead of taking the “easy” path with an already-saved guy.
It never works, but if it did, she’d still be unhappy, because now he wouldn’t be the guy who made her hot anymore.
It’s as if a man thought, “I can’t seem to find an attractive woman with a good personality who will give me the time of day, so I’ll marry a fat one who looked good in high school and convince her to go low-carb. By the time she loses the weight and gets hot again, she’ll be stuck with me, and I’ll have a hot wife with a good personality!” Then, after 5-10 years of failed diets and bingeing and gaining even more weight, he’d kick her out and divorce her, saying, “You’re not the woman I married.”
@Cail
Seems like white knights isn’t strictly a male thing. There’s some women who seem to think they can do it by sheer force of will too.
1. Paul advocated singleness rather than marriage, not merely because he thought married life was too difficult, but because he, like many Christians of his day, thought that Christ would come back in their lifetime, and they had a lot of work to do. So, it’s not surprising to admonish “those who are maried to be as though they married not”. He even said those who were going through bad times to get over it (see vs 30), and focus on the task at hand—that of preaching the gospel to everyone before Christ returned.
2. Yes, I am familiar with 1 Corinthians 7:38, and it did not say what you alluded to. Just because Paul did not mention an equivalent of virgin for men did not mean he condoned sexual promiscuity by men. He was addressing a specific question which the Corinthian Christians had asked him about. He did refer to a single man (“he that is unmarried”) but did not seem to indicate that the man had a license to go fornicate everywhere. In the passage, “So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.” , the “he” in both instances actually referred to the virgin’s father, not the man that got married to her. Maybe you might want to read the preceding verses to coinfirm this.
In other passages, Paul dealt with a man who was sexually loose–and the punishment was stringent: he was to be excommunicated from the church for sleeping with his father’s wife, and to be handed over to Satan. In other words, the protection and prayers of the church were to be lifted off him, and he was to be exposed to demonic torments. See 1 Corinthians 5:1-5. Much later, after the man had become more repentant, Paul said the church should restore him into fellowship. See 2 Corinthians 2: 1-10.
3. A lot of the women who engage in premarital sex were led into it by the men they were with. No, I am not excusing any woman for being promiscuous, but merely stating that a woman is far more easily manipulated and controlled by their men than a man being similarly influenced by their women. When a woman likes a guy, she will do anything—including violating her cherished values—just to please him. Everybody knows this. Thta is the main reason why women must be protected, not merely from bodily injuries, but from being in contact with Alpha guys who could cause more longlasting damage. So, if we must admit that “Men and women are not the same.”, then we must equally admit that we cannot treat them the same. I still maintain that many women who end up riding the carousel and getting thoroughly messed up both in their bodies and minds are the real victims—victims of feminism, and victims of men’s failure to protect them from its influences.
4. Marrying a reformed slut can only increase the likelihood of sexlessness, contention and manipulation on the part of a wife.
Actually, no. The real reason why many men do not enjoy their marriages and forced into marital celibacy is because they got it wrong from the very beginning, and therefore ended up choosing the wrong woman. Even after this, they failed to protect the woman from destructive teachings from the likes of Pastor Driscoll. Most western men, in the name of being nice, have abdicated their God-given authority in the home, and they have passively accepted the feminist doctrine of “male-female equality”. Thus, the woman sees herself as “co-captain” from the very start, and does not want to be told what to do by her husband.
As has been proven again and again, even a chaste woman who got married as a teenager would soon blow up her marriage over time, because her husband has failed over the years, to clip her wings and provided the much needed leadership which her heart truly craves. A woman feels secured when she is dominated by her man, because that is the only way for her to see him as being strong and able to protect her in time of need.
5. Women who fornicate sin in the eyes of God and are unfit for marriage…. I don’t know how we fix it now
I daresay that the emphasized section is not supported by any passage of scripture? When a fornicator truly repents, his/her sins are all forgiven and the stain of sin is cleansed. They are as clean before God as if they never sinned. Yes, the blood of Jesus is that powerful.
“Come now, let us settle the matter,” says the LORD. “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.”
Isaiah 1:18
How we fix it? We begin by believing what the Word says about the situation.
6. Dave, in the not so distant past shaming women as sluts and whores and the consequences of their bad choices were the only things that kept the knees of ravenous young women together.
Agreed. But there may be something you overlooked: coupled with shaming women for being sluts was a high expectation of responsibility from men. A man who was notorious for being a playboy could be shot by a man if he tried to seduce his daughter. That is also largely lost these days. But the Patriarchy is intact in many part of the world. In much of the Muslim world, in Africa, and Asia. Only the West is afflicted with the disease of feminism to a reasonable degree, resulting in out of control women.
In the final analysis, the real fundamental problem is the church. When the church failed to maintain spiritual leadership in society, everything started to fall apart. Feminism thrives in the West because the church allows it. Just as slavery flourished and racism continues to linger as well. It’s all due to the tacit approval of the church.
If the church begins, even today, to take a decided stand against sluttery, single motherhood, unbiblical divorce, homosexuality, and boldly and repeatedly condemn such, if they rebuke sin in the power of the Holy Spirit, and point the sinner to the Savior, our society will have no choice but to begin to make the needed changes. Politicians will begin to make policies that align more with Scripture rather than to feminism; reasonable women will become strengthened to train their daughters according to God’s word, not allow them to get indoctrinated by feminism; men will once again begin to lead, and we’ll all be the better for it.
Alas, today, the most vocal and most influential movement is the ungodly Feminism. The church has been cowered into silence. Like the Apostle of old, the church is in hiding, even though their Savior has risen. But we pray and hope that the Holy Spirit will once again be poured out, and the church will rise again, and speak as an oracle of God. failing that, our society is doomed.
So I read the comments backward, I’m weird like this
@ da GBFM lzzzzzzzlzlz (TM) on March 24, 2015 at 1:03 pm
I love your use of Hamlet, i’ve always thought Ofelia just got pregnant so she could Marry into the royal family.
@ Dave regrading your comment at 3:00 pm on the 26
Sin is a crime against God and our true nature. All sin must be repented for. That being said a man is the rightful leader and he should initiate the wedding night activities.
I am a “from the womb” 28 yr old virgin. At the earliest, I’ll be marry at 28 and half or 29. I would like a virgin or a widowor. Why ? Arrogance for the first and curiosity for second.
First, It’s not been easy to wait the 17 yrs since my sex drive kicked in . And while I’m NOT Holleyberry (dictated) I am nice-enought looking were a legally blind man May take a poke. However my fear of God, hatred of abortion and desire to enjoy my sex life without sin ( which is a Vaid reason to marry) has kept my purity in place.
Second, scince I’ve committed to waiting until marriage or my 81 birthday ( whichever happens first 🙂 I would like a husband with some idea of what he wants when it comes to lovemaking , if not some experience in the area . At the very lest he should know as much as his ex porn addit virgin wife.
Just as a slut don’t make a good wife a Prude maybe not a good husband make….
“A lot of the women who engage in premarital sex were led into it by the men they were with. No, I am not excusing any woman for being promiscuous, but merely stating that a woman is far more easily manipulated and controlled by their men than a man being similarly influenced by their women.”
I watched a news story about something similar to this last night. The girl had her boyfriend demand she take a nude photo on her cell phone and send it to him because that showed she loved him or else he would leave. So she did. That’s the type of ‘alpha’ behavior that is just as bad as women encouraging women to be promiscuous or using men to get their resources.
And that’s why I ask guys when they have sex with a gal if she initiated it or if that’s what his whole plan was the entire time. I think both scenarios happen quite a bit.
Paul advocated singleness rather than marriage, not merely because he thought married life was too difficult, but because he, like many Christians of his day,
Dave, I hope you are not suggesting that 1Cor 7:38 is less than the Holy Spirit inspired word of God. This seems to be a suggesting that the Bible has errors based upon a mistaken understanding of it’s multiple authors, forgetting that the entire Bible has ONE author the Holy Spirit.
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(2Ti 3:15-16)
Or maybe your are reducing the canon of Paul to Bible commentary forgetting that he was an Apostle?
Cut that first quote off: Paul advocated singleness rather than marriage, not merely because he thought married life was too difficult, but because he, like many Christians of his day, thought that Christ would come back in their lifetime, and they had a lot of work to do.
This is not right. By family law there is no right woman. This marriage thing is hard. Far better to understand female nature and have more faith than righteous conduct. Always understand there is no worldly reason at all for any woman to follow scripture in her life The feminine imperative ensures she is provided with maximum comfort through out her life. That includes no restrictions or obligations on her part for anything. Starting with abortion, up to and including reduced penalty for criminal acts. Wedding vows and Christian behavior for the title Christian woman mean nothing. When ever you speak to a woman that is from where she speaks. Know that going in and keep as a subroutine in all thought processes. This is why good solid working men that try and please their wife’s are divorced and pay child support.
Paul’s words still ring true today even if he thought Christ was coming in a short amount of time.
Christians of this day, need to think that Christ could come back in their lifetime, and they have a lot of work to do. Who’s to say He won’t.
If the church begins, even today, to take a decided stand against sluttery, single motherhood, unbiblical divorce, homosexuality, and boldly and repeatedly condemn such, if they rebuke sin in the power of the Holy Spirit, and point the sinner to the Savior, our society will have no choice but to begin to make the needed changes.
If it does that all of the women’s studies professionals like Sheila Gregoire and her disciples will leave in mass. What about the children? Seems like we were talking about this very thing just yesterday weren’t we?
Gunner Q says:
March 25, 2015 at 8:33 pm
His father *was* being unjust and unfair
I hope you realize that the father in this passage actually represents God Almighty? The default is He is never unfair or unjust. That much is clear. The prodigal decided to return as a servant because he was repentant, coupled with his sorrow for sin. A truly repentant person will be full of self-loathing when they contemplate how much evil they’ve done.
It is no sin to be angry at seeing evil rewarded and good neglected or punished.
God does not reward evil and punish the good. God never changes His purpose: He is more interested in people repenting and becoming better, rather than being eternally lost. He always erred on the side of mercy. That is what makes God God. But then, He is also a consuming fire when the time comes.
Not attending an event is a timeless form of protest. That’s all this is.
Really? When an All-knowing God thinks you ought to be at an event, you had better get your Sunday best ready! Your feeble protest against the will of an Almighty God may actually be an insult against Him. If it was not very important the father wouldn’t go out looking for him, and urging him to get involved in the festivities.
Having a different opinion than his father is no sin and who do you think did the prodigal’s work after he left?
Again, God is happier over one sinner that repents than over 99 just persons who need no repentance. The elder brother had more than an opinion. A difference of opinion is to be at the party, but to call the father aside to register his reluctance. But instead, he condemned his father’s judgment outright, and he rejected the repentant sinner, just in the same way that many folks on this site are rejecting repentant sinners.
The fact is, we really have no right to have a different opinion from that of God. He is always right. he is always just. We are called to think like He thinks, not the other way around.
The loyal son did nothing wrong.
O no; he did a lot wrong. He was so wrong that he needed the father to leave the party, and go out and preach to him, and correct his faulty theology, his hateful and self-righteous heart, and his ignorance about his father’s provisions (his father would never have stopped him if he had killed a calf in order to celebrate with his friends). He did not know that his acceptance by his father had nothing to do with how hard working he was. He was already a son, and that was not going to change. He illustrated that he really did not know his father that much, though he claimed to do much work for him. I think that is typical of many Christians.
Today, promiscuous women can be forgiven but that does not make them equal to virgins any more than the prodigal son being forgiven returned his misspent inheritance.
Again, you cannot support that view with Scripture, so it must be a personal opinion, which does not really count much.
This is what Jesus said to the chief priests and the elders of the people who came to Him while He was teaching:
“Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before you.” Matthew 21:31
What do you say about that? If Jesus said this, I had better jettisoned my personal bias and start thinking the way he thinks!
‘If it does that all of the women’s studies professionals like Sheila Gregoire and her disciples will leave in mass.’
I would rather they leave of their own free will after hearing the truth…than to live in a world where they are soothed by their smooth lies from the pulpit.
Again, I wish to clarify that I do believe that a virgin is infinitely more desirable than a nonvirgin when choosing a spouse. What I am driving at is that it is only a mater of personal preference, and we cannot support that assertion with any Scripture. Maybe in the OT, when God specifically instructed priests to marry only virgins. At the same time he excluded widows as well. See Leviticus 21:13, 14.
Renee Harris says:
March 26, 2015 at 8:02 am
Just as a slut don’t make a good wife a Prude maybe not a good husband make….
I hope to address the other part of your post. Meanwhile, let me tell you a little secret. When I first got married, I was (in your terms) “a prude”. Even though I had seen a whole lot of nakedness because of my line of work, I had never been romantically involved with a woman. I was 27. Good physique. Intelligent and well read. Or so I thought.
Of course, it was awkward on the wedding night, and I was probably being chased by the Speed Demon. But I kid you not: my prudishness was shortlived. With frequent “practice” and open mind to learn new things, I was a pro in no time.
And that is exactly the truth which our degenerate society does not want people to know: any two people, no matter how sexually inexperienced they might be, can become a pro in no time if they communicate clearly, practice often, and are open to learning new things. There really are no prudes, save for those who failed to learn well.
Desiring a husband who has been with several women in the past is probematic in so many ways. If anything, you’re advocating that other women be used as experiments.
@Dave – That is the point that St. Paul is trying to make. We are all like priests as members of the body of Christ. So as a Christian man, you would deserve the most pure wife much like the kohanim in Leviticus. Remember, St. Paul knew everything about Jewish law being a Pharisee himself. He knew the law inside and out.
Therefore by trying to apply Jewish law to Gentile believers, St. Paul says you shouldn’t unite with a harlot because it’s fornication, but because a harlot isn’t pure and you shouldn’t marry one either. For St. Paul, she would be considered unpure, unclean, like pork to the Jew. The Christian should demand a chaste, virginal bride much like the Jewish kohen (priest) did. This fact doesn’t mean that the harlot couldn’t become repentant. There used to be nunneries for these types of women.
In St. Paul’s time there used to be virgin brides everywhere in which to marry. Unfortunately, times have changed much in the western world. We are trying to square the circle, and I don’t see how one can get around this problem without most men becoming chubby beta celibates being made happy with Cheetos, video games and Scripture.
Yeah I don’t know why people make sex out to be like rocket science or calculus and that you have to be a genius about it before you get married. You get a husband and wife together over a period of time and I’m sure things get figured out pretty quickly.
@Siobhan,
Is there a resource for what to do, or not do, when raising a young girl (she’s preteen, in elementary school), in order to avoid this senseless entitlement and obscene debauchery that seems to be “normal” now?
For starters, teach her logic. The Fallacy Detective by Nathaniel and Hans Bluedorn is perfect for her age. Cultivate in her a love and quest for Logic and Truth. Pay close attention to when she makes irrational decisions or arguments and have her determine, by what she has learned, what was fallacious about her reasoning. After years of this excellent training, she will start seeing it in her own self other people and, if she’s like my daughters, it will annoy her. She will recognize that her first inclination, her first thought, her first feeling, is not necessarily truth and is untrustworthy. Coupling this education with teaching her to pray without ceasing you will see her grow leaps and bounds in rational thought before your very eyes. My 15 year old daughter was just asked yesterday, “What are you obsessed about?” and she responded, “Reading the Bible.” (She was your daughter’s age when she started studying logic).
Greyghost wrote the following:
Always understand there is no worldly reason at all for any woman to follow scripture in her life The feminine imperative ensures she is provided with maximum comfort through out her life. That includes no restrictions or obligations on her part for anything. Starting with abortion, up to and including reduced penalty for criminal acts. Wedding vows and Christian behavior for the title Christian woman mean nothing
This is the red pill that women have to swallow and accept as hard truth. There is no worldly reason for women to follow scripture. Teach your daughter that to whom much is given much is required and sow into your daughter an impenetrable love for the Lord. She will gain a calming peace as she learns to purposefully cast off rebellion and humbly submit to the very personal instruction found in the Bible that is exclusively for women. She will treasure her relationship with the Lord and it will gird her through the loneliness she will inevitably feel when she stands outside of the crowd, refuses to take part in the entitlement and debauchery, and is chastised for it.
It often seems to be the case that some essay from Dalrock – as with the above – resonates with something in my life.
I have recently been re-reading (as I have mentioned before and for reasons I need not go into) certain love letters form an ex-lover. I am, apparently, Mr Right, yet in one of her letters to me – she tells me that she accepted an invitation to dinner (at an up-market restaurant) from a man with whom she worked. To put this into even better context one must assume that he had asked her a few days before the date and yet I had been with her as recently as the previous fortnight. She praises me for my lack of jealousy and says in true Hamstereze that she had always wanted a man to possess her unpossessively and apparently I am that man .
I say: that men do not tend to ask women out unless they are being in some ways facilitated or encouraged via IOIs; that for a woman who seems to have me half-way up the aisle to continue to date (which is what accepting the offer of dinner amounts to) is a form of cuckoldry. On arrival at the restaurant she says that she made it clear that it was only food, wine and chat that he was getting (as well as, one presumes, the check – or as we would say, bill). I will leave aside the fact that some man with real game might easily (after all the wine) have succeeded in seducing her – he does not seem to have got much further than some groping – and pose these hypothetical questions:
Suppose that on arriving at the restaurant he had thanked her for agreeing to the meal and looked forward to the food and wine and her company but had made it clear that he did not propose contributing so much as a cent towards the cost. How would she have felt?
Suppose I had written her a letter in which I said that knowing that she was such an un-jealous person I thought she should know that I had met a woman whom I had invited to bed and thus I spent an entirely pleasant afternoon or evening enjoying sex with the body of a complete stranger – but it meant nothing to me emotionally and my love was all for her. How would she have feel about that?
Phillyastro says:
March 26, 2015 at 9:51 am
@Dave – That is the point that St. Paul is trying to make. We are all like priests as members of the body of Christ. So as a Christian man, you would deserve the most pure wife much like the kohanim in Leviticus.
I thought the Levitical priesthood has been abolished? In Christ, there is no male or female, Jew or Gentile. All those who are blood-washed in Christ are one in Him.
I don’t see how one can get around this problem without most men becoming chubby beta celibates being made happy with Cheetos, video games and Scripture.
I see a lot of hope, actually. There is a lot of rumbling going on. God is raising up a chuch outside the church building, and this church is getting awoken to biblical principles.
I was at a church last week. The pastor conducted a mock wedding to kick off his series on biblical families. While administering the vows, he said some statements which most modern day preachers will never mention. As he turnd to the woman he said “Do you take ….as your lawfully wedded husband, to love, support and obey him….?” The woman eagerly said “I do”. Then he went on to admonish them about marital duties. I mean, he went to town— emphasizing the need for regular, rabbit-like sex, including duty sex if necessary, and the need for the woman to keep herself in good physical shape after the wedding, etc. He had some admonitions for the husband as well, though it was clear h stuck to biblical principles without apologies.
Renee Harris says:
March 26, 2015 at 8:02 am
I would like a husband with some idea of what he wants when it comes to lovemaking , if not some experience in the area . At the very lest he should know as much as his ex porn addit virgin wife.
Are you suggesting that you’re looking for a “Christian” husband who has had a promiscuous lifestyle, and/or a former porn addict? Really? And what if his “experience” comes with a few STDs, such as herpes and Chlamydia? is that OK too?
And for those who are overly bent on physical virginity, here is an example of why that is not what it sounds like. You can be a virgin in body but be just as “experienced” as someone who has been sexually active. In my mind, virginity (or chasitiy as suggested by Earl) is much more than not being physically involved in sexual activities. I personally believe that it involves purity of thinking and purity of desires. A person who has been previously addicted to pornography will have a somewhat difficult time to convince me that they are still virgins. Will God forgive them if they repent? Absolutely. But they are almost in the same category as a repentant woman who has had a sexual partner in the past, but who never used porn.
Just my opinion.
‘Suppose that on arriving at the restaurant he had thanked her for agreeing to the meal and looked forward to the food and wine and her company but had made it clear that he did not propose contributing so much as a cent towards the cost. How would she have felt?’
Well I’ll put it this way…there a BIG difference between a man not proposing to pay for a meal and a woman proposing that she isn’t giving her body to him that night. The man is showing lack of manners (if he did the invitation)…the woman is showing prudence.
Yes, that was precisely my point to Dave yesterday. Better to preach the truth and let the chips fall (and the blue pill chowder).
@Earl above.
Opus says:
March 26, 2015 at 10:16 am
I have recently been re-reading (as I have mentioned before and for reasons I need not go into) certain love letters form an ex-lover. I am, apparently, Mr Right, yet in one of her letters to me – she tells me that she accepted an invitation to dinner (at an up-market restaurant) from a man with whom she worked.
I think we should stop right there. Sorry, I think you are at fault. You allowed this to happen. You ought to have made it clear from the beginning that a woman you are serious with cannot go on dates with another man. I mean, you’re a man yourself. Which man would date a woman he is not romantically interested in?
You either intentionally or blindly missed the point. This finding a wife thing is going to really kick your ass isn’t?
Dave? “Romantically” interested? May I direct you to the lurker section?
@Dave – I was suggesting that all members of Christ’s body were to be spiritually clean LIKE the kohanim, according to St. Paul – that is all.
Also if you’re wondering about the emphasis about virginity here at Dalrock’s site, you should look to many studies like this one:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2733220/Women-don-t-sleep-wedding-happier-marriages-men-play-field-without-worry-study-finds.html
Do you think the emphasis on virginal brides started with Christianity or Christians? If it truly doesn’t matter about the chastity of one’s bride, then marriage itself is pointless. It is like I said before – Biblical marriage and divorce as written in the Scriptures doesn’t exist anymore. These institutions have gone the way of Caesar’s face on the coin of the realm.
I would like a husband with some idea of what he wants when it comes to lovemaking , if not some experience in the area . At the very lest he should know as much as his ex porn addit virgin wife.
Are you suggesting that you’re looking for a “Christian” husband who has had a promiscuous lifestyle, and/or a former porn addict? Really? And what if his “experience” comes with a few STDs, such as herpes and Chlamydia? is that OK too?
And for those who are overly bent on physical virginity, here is an example of why that is not what it sounds like. You can be a virgin in body but be just as “experienced” as someone who has been sexually active. In my mind, virginity (or chasitiy as suggested by Earl) is much more than not being physically involved in sexual activities. I personally believe that it involves purity of thinking and purity of desires. A person who has been previously addicted to pornography will have a somewhat difficult time to convince me that they are still virgins. Will God forgive them if they repent? Absolutely. But they are almost in the same category as a repentant woman who has had a sexual partner in the past, but who never used porn.
Just my opinion.
@ no I would be open to a widower or a physical virgin who knows what he wants. God delivered me form porn two month after I got saved . That why ask “what is a ‘virgin’ ?” On another thread. I maybe the worst kind of slut : a woman who want to be a godly wife just for sex…. And to honor God. As it is you’re right, but my anger at never having kiss a man
Thanks for your honest
Opus, so she read you wrong? You are the jealous type?
🙂
From Phillyastro link, an interesting stat –
The researchers followed the subjects for five years. In that time, 418 were married.
Only 23 per cent of those who got married during the survey had sex solely with the person they married
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2733220/Women-don-t-sleep-wedding-happier-marriages-men-play-field-without-worry-study-finds.html#ixzz3VVYqSVy4
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
ONLY 23% had one sexual partner. Yet it is claimed that only 5% of women over 20 are still virgins by some here. So obviously, these virgins are saving it for marriage, and marry at a disproportionate rate compared to the rest of the woman.
Keep looking Earl, you are on the right track.
@DeNihilist
I would suppose I am neither more nor less jealous then the next man – though any of us may turn into an Othello or Leontes and read adultery where it does not exist. I was not jealous about her dinner-date because it was obvious that she was crazy for me (her daily letters – we were in different countries – left me in no doubt). I was less keen than her, rapidly losing interest, and ditched her a month later (to her considerable distress, I may add) but I agree with Dave (our Iago) that I should have kicked her to the kerb there and then (if not sooner).
What I love is the way that she justifies her cuckoldry such that were I to be upset, this would show that I was a controlling and insecure person. The real point of my post is thus in the two hypothetical questions which perhaps Ms Ma would care to have a stab at answering.
On another note, racism is still alive and well in America. Or, maybe, it is only a matter of personal opinion.
Dave @ 8:57 am:
““Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before you.” Matthew 21:31 What do you say about that?”
I say Christ was speaking to the Pharisees, not his own disciples.
Patrick @ March 25, 2015 at 10:25 pm
“This is classic! And, this guy even paid for dinner…for three dates. Look what it got him. http://www.feministing.org/p82”
Wow, what a foul piece of feminism! Maybe we should bring back the concept of the Scarlet Letter? Maybe a scarlet “F” for Feminist?
‘Women who have several sexual partners before getting married have less happy marriages – but men do no harm by playing the field,a study has found.’
Well maybe not when it comes to having less happy marriages…but STDs, false accuastions, unplanned pregancy, BPD girls going nuts on them, etc. There’s plenty of harm that can come to a man playing the field like that.
‘ONLY 23% had one sexual partner. Yet it is claimed that only 5% of women over 20 are still virgins by some here. So obviously, these virgins are saving it for marriage, and marry at a disproportionate rate compared to the rest of the woman.
Keep looking Earl, you are on the right track.’
Well obviously 18% of them are lying and we are going to poke as many holes as we can in their story to get it down to 5%. We have a cynical mindset to protect.
If it truly doesn’t matter about the chastity of one’s bride, then marriage itself is pointless.
I totally agree that the chastity of a woman matters. I never really argued against that point. Personally, if I were to choose between two women, one chaste and the other not, all things being equal, I would naturally choose the chaste one.
But my point, all along was that I do not have a biblical basis for that choice other than personal preference. But the article you linked to was new to me; I have to take some time to read it.
@ DeNihilist
ONLY 23% had one sexual….
Corrected: “ONLY 23% SAID that they had one sexual….”
@ earl
Well obviously 18% of them are lying and we are going to poke as many holes as we can in their story to get it down to 5%. We have a cynical mindset to protect.
Oh, no, women always tell the truth and the 23% number is gospel truth. BJs, HJs, anal, and fingering don’t count as notches.
@ earl
but STDs, false accuastions, unplanned pregancy, BPD girls going nuts on them
Do you know anything about STD rates? And what false accusations? How common are false rape accusations? How about unplanned pregnancy? What if the woman you married is BPD?
@Maunalani “Wow, what a foul piece of feminism!”
I think feministing.org is a parody website (of feministing.com)
Opus,
What does it matter if you marry a woman who it transpires has an N higher than you would like.
– Lack of the ability to truly bond.
– Someone who is used to lots of variety and now will be stuck with only me.
– Likelihood of later divorce.
I think those are pretty good reasons.
Dave,
I do not have a biblical basis for that choice other than personal preference.
You may want to read the Bible a bit more then. Chastity is quite high on the list, for both sexes.
Deti,
Fact: CDC figures state the typical American woman has a median (or average) of 3 premarital sex partners. I’ll be conservative and give the benefit of the doubt, use a “rule of 2″ minus one, and call that 5 premarital sex partners.
Then many must have had none if the average is there, since we know many have far more. Even hitting 10 on one women, not unreasonable for someone who is already loose, would require one with an N of 0 to hit your average.
Earl,
Do you know the tells of a lie?
They are female, so they must be lying per some here.
Many certainly do, but claiming all do is idiocy, not red pill. Maybe they took the psychedelic pill instead and they are on a “trip” seeing things….
Scott,
You may not be able to tell lies 100% of the time, but you certainly can tell character by watching someone in many situations. Are you really going to assert (as a therapist no less) that you can NEVER tell a lie?
Some can lie on things like a polygraph as well. But watching that same person over time would expose the charade.
Dave,
VIRGINITY IS OVERRATED; SLUTTERY IS OVERUSED
HONESTY IS OVERRATED! EVERYONE LIES SO WE SHOULD JUST GO THROUGH LIFE ASSUMING EVERYONE IS LYING. I AM LYING NOW!
/sarc
I work in a field where paranoia is necessary, but I also put limits on my own tendencies toward that as it is no way to live all the time.
I was thinking about this the other day and most of you have little trust in God to guide your lives. You have no allowance that He has a remnant and that some have not fully given into the world and its ways. It is kind of like Elijah proclaiming only he was faithful when he had already been told that one of the king’s servants was hiding a bunch of followers of the Lord in a cave and feeding them out of the king’s rations.
God will keep those charged to Him. You can call that blue pill if you want, but that belief is far more effective than some appeal to the “great books” that abandons the principles found from the One who wrote the greatest of those.
Time to call me a churchian, though you couldn’t be much more idiotic. I follow God’s Word as firmly as I can. I am not naive about women, but neither do I hold them accountable for all that is wrong. We have plenty of sin to go around. We also have plenty of a Savior to go around, yet few push for that.
Hmmm
Feministing.Org is parody. Hilarious actually.
@ Marcus…
He does have a point.
‘Do you know anything about STD rates? And what false accusations? How common are false rape accusations? How about unplanned pregnancy? What if the woman you married is BPD?’
To point out that men can go out and have multiple sexual partners without harm is stupid. These are examples of different harms that have happened to men because of this.
‘Oh, no, women always tell the truth and the 23% number is gospel truth. BJs, HJs, anal, and fingering don’t count as notches.’
Point proven.
I get it Earl, but I was coming at it in a different direction (let the swords be drawn!). Yes I have pointed out before, that when women and men are put on a lie detector and asked about N counts, the women’s average goes up and the men’s come down. Get it, got it, bought the T-shirt.
But what this study indicates, and it was a 5 year study, not just a questionnaire, is that IF a woman or a man is trying to keep their virginity for marriage, THEY will obviously be represented far higher in the marriage stats then their group (5%) is represented in the general population.
So quick back of the envelope –
America, about 320 mil.
so about 160 mil women
take away say 40% for underaged leaves 72 mil
5% of 72 mil is 3.6 mil
take away 70% of that for old, married, nuns, lesbians, etc. leaves about 1 million virgins of marrying age in America.
So say Earl is in his 30’s and is willing to go as high as 2 years younger then himself, let’s then reduce that number by another 40%. So there should be approx. 600,000 virgin women of marriageable age for you to persue and since they tend to marry at a 5to 1 ratio over promiscuous women, I think you have a great chance of accomplishing your goal.
@Earl
There are echos of feminism in it (it comes from the Good Men Project). Given the comments on the image, I think such an evaluation is close. Beyond that, the quote is a false dichotomy.
(It wasn’t properly attributed, too.)
TFH, to pare down the available virgins from my envelope calcs even further, how would you distribute the 600,000 number I came up with into the less then 4, 5-7, 8 or above fraction of women’s looks?
I would probably go 30/50/20
Maybe 10% of them are virgins, tops.
So does that leave around 60,000 for Earl? How many of those would make sammiches and NOT hit the nuke button down the road? Earl have you considered looking in a foreign market?
What is a virgin?
I’ve never kiss a boy. ( or girl ) (truth)
I’ve never had “any hole” sex
I stopped hugging guys ( no sister hug).
I was delivered form porn ( and the m word )
I give hi five or fist bums to my guys friend
I stopped online dating because I don’t have what guys want and I did not trust myself with it
But now I thinking I am slut so now what do I just screw or kill myself( half joke). I can’t preach or share the gospel ( God hates women) now can’t marry. So what can woman like me do beside die and paid taxes
I kinda want be a guy: I’m p could preach and prayer for people and see them healed…
What is a virgin?
I think I’ve never had “any hole” sex sums it up.
I can’t preach (False – you can preach to women) or share the gospel (False – all the way around this is wrong) ( God hates women) False – A lie often told by feminists.
So what can woman like me do beside die and paid taxes
Why don’t you pray and ask God what He wants you to do?
I kinda want be a guy
This can’t be helping.
You may not be able to tell lies 100% of the time, but you certainly can tell character by watching someone in many situations. Are you really going to assert (as a therapist no less) that you can NEVER tell a lie?
Some can lie on things like a polygraph as well. But watching that same person over time would expose the charade.
I am not sure I totally understand this but I will try to respond.
As a psychologist, I have several roles to play and “therapist” is a becoming an ever smaller piece of that pie. This is because the longer I am at this, the more specialized I become toward things I am interested in. (Forensics and operational psychology mostly). The context/setting is what drives my approach to “truthfulness.”
However, I do have therapy patients which is exactly what it sounds like. Weekly sessions of talking to them about their problems. Therapy requires a “therapeutic alliance” which by read is much like the relationship between a lawyer and client. Generally I take what my individual therapy patients say to me at face value. This is because I am their advocate and I am trying to help them get better. If their entire story is a lie, they will short circuited their own treatment. I get paid regardless. There are limits to this, and there even times when confronting the patient about something that comes out as untrue is therapeutic. It must be done carefully.
Mostly what I was getting at was the science of lie detecting.
In other settings (especially in the military) like forensic, quasi-forensic, comp and pen, and operational psychology (working a source) the “patient” is not my client, the Army is.
In those cases, it is paramount that I know within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the person is providing an accurate representation of their symptoms or story.
This is where psychological testing comes in. If you really wanted to know if an individual woman is “lying” about her virginity, I recon you would need to develop a “sexual practices” survey that uses sophisticated embedded algorithms designed to detect inconsistency, and frequency of response to low-base rate items. MRCs and discriminant functions on tests like the PAI do a great job of teasing this out. In fact there are some cool “aftermarket” things you can do with the data to make a dichotomous variable (liying/truth) into a continuous one. (effortful negative distortion–>noneffortful negative distortion–>”true”–>noneffortful positive distortion–>noneffortful positive distortion.)
But even then, we are just mathematically looking at a predictive set of variables and norms. In other words “looks like a liar, walks a liar, talks like a liar, must be a liar”)
So, if say, Earl wanted to know this–he could develop, validate and norm a test and give it to his prospects. It would be awkward but it would be the best way I know how to tell if someone is lying to me.
But as to your basic question–the data tells me “no, I cannot tell by just talking to someone if they are lying.” (Any better than chance)
We like to believe we can, but it’s pretty well proven that we can’t.
I wonder if my kids hate being the children of psychologist.
I was thinking about this the other day and most of you have little trust in God to guide your lives. You have no allowance that He has a remnant and that some have not fully given into the world and its ways.
I’ve noticed that the comments on this blog push my thoughts that way. I have to remind myself that some of the commenters here are not Christian, or do not share the same convictions.
Thank you too for your reminder.
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!”
Above should read “noneffortful positive distortion–>effortful positive distortion.”
@ JDG I can’t preach (False – you can preach to women) or share the gospel (False – all the way around this is wrong) ( God hates women) False – A lie often told by feminists.
Plasm 11:5? Yesterday some one wrote women don’t morals, and don’t come from the factory with A content? So since it is true that Yahweh is just judge and He all to know that he is God And thus is worthy of Worship , woman being more and thus pre dispersed to sin , the ones refer in plasm. 11:5. That’s cool for The Lord is good see all plasm 2 ( I loves that plasm). But if godly man hate woman
( not just our bs but us) the. God mist hate me too. Only the blood of Christ can separate a sin from sinner making them a beliver. How can one sin angsint her brother.( a husband or just a guy of faith she know) by ( any of sin like being a slut, withholding sex, idolizating herself, drying Gods order, breaking her convent ) still save in the eyes of her Heavenly Father?
I can preach what to woman? I am apart in a ministry ( under a red pill guy and wife) trying to help underage girls, boy woman and man trap in human trafficking . The boys And men are victims. The girls are sluts, rigth? And the woman Are Whore? Because these aren’t the carousel Riders I see at work. But I say ” God love you”. To ’14 yr old trafficked whore is that chruchanty? Or slut praising? I feel convicted to do this, by holy spirt so I’m confuse..
God hats sin
Women are Drunk with sin
How love woman?
I recall someone on here (years ago) doing the math from the perspective of a Catholic male. They took a lot into consideration (e.g. age range in the US, demographics of Catholics, cited a study about partner counts by age, typical percentages for faith adherence, a bell curve of attractiveness, some educated guesswork about likelihood of mutual attraction, and so forth) and came up with a number of around 70,000. (There are other such exercises on NRX blogs and the like.)
We have to remember that “it only takes one” and, if you know where to look, such a person may be found rather quickly.
But if godly man hate woman
( not just our bs but us) the. God mist hate me too.
Are you trying to say that God hates you, or are you trying to say that some guys here believe that God hates you?
Psalm 11:5 – The Lord tests the righteous,
but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.
If you are in Christ, you are righteous not wicked.
I can preach what to woman? I am apart in a ministry ( under a red pill guy and wife) trying to help underage girls, boy woman and man trap in human trafficking .
Commendable work. Has God called you to it?
The boys And men are victims. The girls are sluts, rigth? And the woman Are Whore?
Are you seriously asking me this? You said before that you weren’t a feminist troll, but this sounds just like a feminist troll.
Because these aren’t the carousel Riders I see at work. But I say ” God love you”. To ’14 yr old trafficked whore is that chruchanty? Or slut praising?
Are trying to tell me that you don’t know the difference between a whore and someone forced into sexual slavery? I’m having a hard time believing you are being sincere. In case you are really just confused and not being facetious, the following excerpt explains how you are not wrong for telling someone (saved or not) that God loves them:
“There is a sense in which God loves everyone in the whole world (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; Romans 5:8). This love in not conditional—it is based only on the fact that God is a God of love (1 John 4:8, 16). God’s love for all of mankind results in the fact that God shows His mercy by not immediately punishing people for their sins (Romans 3:23; 6:23). God’s love for the world is manifested in the fact that He gives people the opportunity to repent (2 Peter 3:9). However, God’s love for the world does not mean He will ignore sin. God is also a God of justice (2 Thessalonians 1:6). Sin cannot go unpunished forever (Romans 3:25-26).”
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/does-God-love-everyone.html#ixzz3VYf20gIW
I feel convicted to do this, by holy spirt so I’m confuse..
God hats sin
Women are Drunk with sin
Everyone sins. Maybe a site like this isn’t for you. This is a place where the sins of women are often brought to the front. Most everywhere else will have loads to read about the sins of men (real and imagined). If you can’t handle whores being called out for whoring, you should probably go elsewhere.
Dave,
I’ve read 1 Cor 7 many times including the various translation (which can differ dramatically) I get a clear message from Paul that marriage was and is trouble “in this life” (fallen world). I find no one asking questions of Paul in that chapter. In Matthew 19 questions are asked of Christ, he also encourages “any man who can hear it” to stay single. SEX is the reason given in both chapters why a man would marry. Big problem, Dave;
**American wives notoriously don’t put out! Additionally they gain an average of 40 pounds, thats the statistical average. Half gain well more.**
“Paul did not mention an equivalent of virgin for men did not mean he condoned sexual promiscuity by men”. No one is condoning men who fornicate, Strawman. But men don’t have WOMBS! However nowadays men commonly marrying women who are sexually compromised by a man other than her betrothed/fiancee etc is a completely new-fangled practice of modern feminized men. Historically non-virgins were harlots for life in most cultures. Ask any old man you know how it was when he was very young. Bad-girls had to leave town and lie to trick a man into marriage.
ER “”Women who fornicate sin in the eyes of God and are unfit for marriage…. I don’t know how we fix it now””
Dave said- “I daresay that the emphasized section is not supported by any passage of scripture?”
Right here; Deuteronomy 22:20
“If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, woman must be taken to the door of her father’s home, and there the men of the town must stone her to death, for she has committed a disgraceful crime in Israel by being promiscuous while living in her parents’ home. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you.”
Non-virgin brides were killed, dead as a hammer. Same for non-widow single moms and anyone caught in the act of fornication/adultery. It was GOD’S LAW.
“A lot of the women who engage in premarital sex were led into it by the men” WHa??
Yes, throughout the history of the world! Thats why women were taught to keep their knees together of pay one hell of a price. What would you have us do Dave? Keep these churchian sluts in cages? Chastity belts? The responsibilities for their sex organs are theirs. No rings for sluts.
“Dominance” of husbands or game is it? Thats where the sexlessness and rebellion of women come from? Sighhhhhh….. I think I’m going to be sick. Yes, dominance/game/washing with the word are important but *women sin, just like the first woman did because they’re rebellious, they’re born evil just like we are. It’s the whole basis of Christianity, it’s why he died for us, our nature is sin.
THIS;
” When a fornicator truly repents, his/her sins are all forgiven and the stain of sin is cleansed. They are as clean before God as if they never sinned. Yes, the blood of Jesus is that powerful.
“Come now, let us settle the matter,” says the LORD. “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.”
Why do Christian keep doing this? Why? The eternal consequences of sin are forgiven with repentance and *turning from sin*. Right, thats right but Dave, never do the scriptures tell us that the temporal consequences of sin, in this life, go away. The consequences of bad choices are the whole reason we’re not supposed to make them.
Sluts are not for marriage, you’ll end up on the Maury Povich show.
Single Catholics-a Catholic woman should be passive?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=953051
My life is a mess and I have a hard time trusting in God
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=953211
@MarcusD – I found your comment interesting, so I did some quick research. Using data from the American Community Survey which says 9.6% of the women in America are 18-24 which gives a value of 15.4M, subtracting out those who are currently married, separated, other, widows, and the divorced, and you’re left with 13.4M.
Using and article from Christian Post which said that 19% of American adults aged 19-29 are Catholic brings the total down to 2.6M. Then using what seemed the three most conservative categories in a Pew Research poll on political leanings brings the total down to about 750K across the US.
If you accept as a given that half of the women 18-24 are attractive enough, you’ve got a final result set of roughly 370K relatively conservative Catholic women across the entirety of the US. Or, about 1% of the population.
Using as an example, the 25th largest statistical metropolitan area of San Antonio TX, you end up with just under 5K reasonably conservative, somewhat attractive, young Catholic women in a metropolitan area with a total population of about 2.3M.
and 3, 2 ,1 – feminist heads start to explode –
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lydia-lovric/stay-at-home-mom_b_6925826.html
Love that piece DeNihilist. She is getting excoriated in the comments. She is so judgmental (ha) and doesn’t recognize that she is privileged not to have slutted into single motherhood or frivorced her children’s father.
@anonymous_ng
I checked out the General Social Survey. I used this question for a start:
398. If Catholic: Please tell me whether you strongly agree,
agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with the following
statements: c. It’s important to obey church teachings even if I
don’t understand them.
I selected female respondents who were aged 19 to 29 and never married. 2% “Strongly Agree” with the above question. 36% “Agree.”
—
Switching the question to:
376. People have many differing views about what makes a person
a good Christian or Jew. Please tell me how important is each of
the following to you. Once again, please indicate where you
would place your feelings on a scale from 1 to 5. a. To attend
regularly religious services at church or synagogue.
With same selection criteria, I got 20% “1. Very Important.” (For Catholics only, it’s 18%.)
—
One more:
Female respondents, aged 19-29, unmarried, and Catholic. I did a distribution for this question:
1549. Now thinking about the time since your 18th birthday
(including the past 12 months) how many male partners have you
had sex with?
In part:
“0” was 12.9%, “1” was 25.5%, “2” was 16.3%, “3” was 10.1%, “4-5” was 11.5%.
—
Now, if someone is promiscuous, and they were interviewed just after their 18th birthday, they would say “zero.” Also, it’s worth noting that the responses are gained via interview, which we all know won’t get the truth out (Cf. Alexander, Michele G., and Terri D. Fisher. “Truth and consequences: Using the bogus pipeline to examine sex differences in self‐reported sexuality.” Journal of sex research 40.1 (2003): 27-35. — https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/239672/original/Alexander+%26+Fisher+(2003).pdf).
Anyhow, the answers for “0” and “1” from 19 to 29 (again, for single Catholic women):
19-20: 23%, 38%
21-22: 12%, 34%
23-24: 12%, 19%
25-26: 7%, 21%
27-29: 8%, 5%
(at 27-29, 16% have had 20+ partners).
Looking at the chart, it seems like there’s a core group who are “waiting” and the others who start to rack up a high count (the shrinking “1” partner group is transferring to other groups, namely the “2”, “3”, “4-5”, all the way to “20+”).
@Earl
“”I want a woman that gets it. She saves herself for marriage and treats dating as getting to know someone for that possibility.””
I agree.They are out there.But again,it is like looking for the Sasquatch.You know that they are there….but,you never see one! At least you know where NOT to look!
http://www.returnofkings.com/58796/15-reasons-why-toronto-is-the-worst-city-in-north-america-for-men
‘Earl have you considered looking in a foreign market?’
Yes…the difference is night and day between a lot of those girls and American ones.
‘But as to your basic question–the data tells me “no, I cannot tell by just talking to someone if they are lying.’
Tone of voice, body language, etc. I’m not just talking about the words.
The boys And men are victims. The girls are sluts, rigth? And the woman Are Whore?
Are you seriously asking me this? You said before that you weren’t a feminist troll, but this sounds just like a feminist troll.
While I’m NOT a toll, I realizes this was out of line. I read comment good men who been hurt by sinful woman with a King Saul complex (1sam 15 )
So I read “if you ____ , then you are a slut. Even if you have not ___, you’re still a slut. Men don’t marry slut”
But some much of the church Is sympathetic to sins of woman .while being trafficked is not a sin( by choice ) the thinks leading up to it( how she dresses acts if she sleep with “love boy”) can be. So yes I’m hurt and anger, I see how I seems like a troll. I brought so much of the “fall church”
Message. But you guys don’t buy that.
Because these aren’t the carousel Riders I see at work. But I say ” God love you”. To ’14 yr old trafficked whore is that chruchanty? Or slut praising?
Are trying to tell me that you don’t know the difference between a whore and someone forced into sexual slavery?
Prostitutes are called whores. A prostitute it’s a victim of human trafficking. Sluts use sex for money love power . In my opinion, prostitutes do not.
I think my real problem is the plug it’s not for women like me: Women who want to be a godly wife at their rightful price for continual sex.
My understanding is God designed marriage where in women get sex from her husband in exchange for being a godly wife, The man get the prayer warrior and House keeper in exchange for sex all for the glory of God Kingdom
Blog is a safe place for men, but I find more truth here in the blog than at that women.
If that makes me a troll, then I’m sorry.
Renee Harris
Earl-
That’s the point of studying the topic in a controlled environment. Every one says that. Everyone says I can tell when someone is lying to me because I watch their body language and tone of voice.
As if they are special. It’s just not true. “tells” are hogwash. Even supposed experts have the same results. You have about a 50/50 chance.
embracing reality says:
March 26, 2015 at 11:58 pm
You did raise very interesting points. If I did not look closely, I would probably have been persuaded.
**American wives notoriously don’t put out! Additionally they gain an average of 40 pounds, that’s the statistical average. Half gain well more.**
True. But who said you must marry an American woman? There are more than 7 billion people on the planet. Even if all Americans were women, they would still constitute less than 5% of all inhabitants of the world. There are very attractive Philippinos, Puerto Ricans, Brazilians, etc all around you. Don’t limit yourself to those who have proven themselves unworthy of being married. Even God sometimes found Himself in that predicament: trying to get some folks to cooperate with Him when they really did not want to. Maybe you should consider doing what He did by going to those who would be more cooperative (see. John 1:12; Acts 13:46; 18:6).
Ask any old man you know how it was when he was very young. Bad-girls had to leave town and lie to trick a man into marriage.
We are probably saying different things here. I totally agree that virgins are preferable for marriage. Given a choice I would definitely go for a virgin. My point however is, what happens when a woman who has been previously sexually active becomes a truly born again Christian? Is she still unfit for marriage? Has she committed an unpardonable sin by being sexually active as a sinner? Are you trying to convince me that the blood of Jesus is too weak to cleanse repentant sinners from sin? I don’t agree with that point.
Note that when a person truly repents of sin, they do not go around defending their sinful behaviors, or try to start a “ministry for sluts” because they had a high N count as teenagers, the way we’ve seen among the churchians.
Both parties being virgins on their wedding night is the ideal situation, and as much as possible, we should aim for the ideal. But a more practical question is, do you condemn people to lives of singleness—and I am writing specifically about repentant sinners here—because they have lost their virginity as singles? I think that is not really practical.
I chose to see repentant sinners like the prodigal son. When he came to his senses, he was full of self-loathing, humility and a deep sense of shame. He did all the work necessary to get out of the squalor he was in, and he would have gladly accepted any punishments his father would have meted out.
Non-virgin brides were killed, dead as a hammer. Same for non-widow single moms and anyone caught in the act of fornication/adultery. It was GOD’S LAW.
Really? The passage you quoted (Deuteronomy 22:20) is as relevant to us today as the Spanish Inquisition. God has established a new covenant under Christ. It is called the “Covenant of Grace”, and under it, we do not stone sinners; we call on them to turn to God, and be saved. Once turned, none of their prior sins would be held up against them anymore. Has the sinner missed great opportunities? Absolutely. Will the fornicator end up marrying the man she otherwise would have married had she been chaste? Probably unlikely. But should she be given a life sentence even after repenting? I don’t think so.
In Christ, the Law of Moses was completely dealt away with, and it became completely null and void.
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.
Now, I do not want to create an impression that the New Covenant was soft on sin, particularly sexual sin; it isn’t. We are warned about sexual sin even as believers:
Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.1 Corinthians 6:18
I did not see anywhere there that even truly repentant sinners cannot be redeemed. Even when a woman taken in adultery was brought to Jesus, and the Pharisees expected Jesus to follow their reasoning, they were disappointed.
The case: John 8
“Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”(vs 4,5)
Christ’s Response to the Accusers:
They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.(vs 7,8).
The Accusers knew they were sinners too:
When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. (vs 9)
Jesus Did Not Condemn the repentant sinner:
Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”
“No, Lord,” she said.
And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”
Note that the woman was repentant, though she did not utter a word:
1. She was publicly humiliated
2. She did not protest her humiliation
3. She had implicitly accepted her fate
4. She did not plan to start a “ministry” for adulterers.
The eternal consequences of sin are forgiven with repentance and *turning from sin*. Right, that’s right but Dave, never do the scriptures tell us that the temporal consequences of sin, in this life, go away. The consequences of bad choices are the whole reason we’re not supposed to make them.
Agreed to a point. But are you suggesting that once a woman/girl engages in sexual sin at all, even if she did that as a sinner and subsequently came to know Christ, she is eternally doomed to singleness? I have a hard time accepting that. You mean if you have a daughter who engages in sexual sin as a teenager with her teenage boyfriend, you would never groom her for marriage? Really?
I would expect that those who sin should be rebuked, and if need be, punished by the church. Once they repent and true, they should be forgiven. Of course, they must be honest with potential suitors.
Sluts are not for marriage, you’ll end up on the Maury Povich show.
Agreed. But who is a slut (pick as many answers as you want)?
A. A woman who has never had vaginal sex but has “fooled around” and “done everything but” with many men.
B. A woman who has never had sex of any kind (oral, anal, or vaginal) but regularly watches porn, and knows about every debased sexual acts out there
C. A woman who has had sex with a former boyfriend who promised to marry her, but they later broke up and went separate ways
D. A woman who had sex with a boyfriend in her early 20s, later came to know Christ, repented of her sins and turned her way around by age 25, and began to live right
E. All of the above!
@ Dave
Point # 3 is so Blue Pill. You are saying that women are the victims of alphas. Lolz, no, they seek alphas. The women might be conflicted, but they have real desire for alphas. When they have sex with alphas, it’s because the women want to. Song of Solomon and all that.
Agreed to a point. But are you suggesting that once a woman/girl engages in sexual sin at all, even if she did that as a sinner and subsequently came to know Christ, she is eternally doomed to singleness? I have a hard time accepting that. You mean if you have a daughter who engages in sexual sin as a teenager with her teenage boyfriend, you would never groom her for marriage? Really?
I would expect that those who sin should be rebuked, and if need be, punished by the church. Once they repent and true, they should be forgiven. Of course, they must be honest with potential suitors.
Forgiveness doesn’t mean that there aren’t consequences in terms of personality formation, sexual imprinting, expectations/comparisons and so on, all of which detrimentally impact the ability to form successful bonds down the road. You’ve posted perhaps the most minimalist example (a girl who has sex once when she’s very young, repents, never does so again, etc.), when we both know that the “normal” example is a woman who generally has had sex with every BF she’s ever had, has had a few extra-BF sexual encounters that “just happened, IMG, I don’t know what came over me!?!?!” and so by the time she is at the “appointed age” of ~25-26 to look for a guy to marry (if not older, and it is getting older every year), she’s had sex with 6-10 guys, depending. She may then decide to repent (after all, that is kind of what she is doing in a secular way anyway, in terms of “changing her life” by looking for a different kind of guy to marry, so repentance makes sense to her emotionally at this stage in her life as well), but by that time she’s well and truly imprinted sexually and emotionally in these areas and is a poor candidate for marriage. The churches are packed with such women in their later 20s and we can’t pretend otherwise.
I’m of the line that once is a mistake, twice is a coincidence, three is a pattern.
Dave and Caleb would get along really, really well. Hmmmmm.
What the hell …. I been wondering for a while now if there are red pill dads with un-feminist Daughters and looking to marry such. Then why not dad and suitor talk about marriage expectations and the daughter preparation for marragie. Then daughter have the suitor in he as daddy friend. But over your could shift the role of Authority to the suitor . If she want to marry him at age 18 or 19 then good. Pros:
She’ll bese to submitting to suitor and if she is young when he show up she will be a virgin. ( in body AND mind) and suitor will be marrying into a bible believing and prancing family.
if they do not marry suitor have a red pill brother and friend….
Cons
Long time to wait and no guarantees of marriage.
I been thinking about this for two weeks…
“but by that time she’s well and truly imprinted sexually and emotionally in these areas and is a poor candidate for marriage.”
Just to flesh this out a bit:
Women who have racked up N>6 or so by the mid to late 20s have “imprinted” in a lot of ways. First, they’ve been living on their own or with girlfriends. Some have lived with or “shacked up” with boyfriends; some have been through broken engagements. They are accustomed to never having to answer to anyone and being able to simply walk away from relationships that don’t suit them in the moment. They’re completely unaccustomed to the give and take that always occurs in relationships. They find compromise extremely difficult because they’ve never had to do it — they resolved relationship difficulties by breaking up.
Second, they have internal thought patterns, behavioral responses and emotional responses vis a vis their relationships with men that are pretty well “set” by this time. A woman with a fair number of sex partners learns quickly how to use a cocktail of sex, emotion and negative behaviors to manipulate men into doing her bidding. She will usually default to those behaviors in a marriage to a less experienced, less “savvy”, more conventionally honest, man. Those manipulations usually take the form of emotional outbursts, sexual “hot/cold”, sexual “push/pull”, sexual withholding, “silent treatment”, leading, “topping from the bottom”, “backleading”, and other toxic responses. Those can be very, very hard to dismantle and rewire.
Third, as a woman accumulates sex partners and samples penises, she develops her tastes and preferences in men. She determines what she likes sexually and what she doesn’t like — penis lengths and girths, body types, facial types, etc. As she runs through them and more of them reject her for commitment, she finds herself increasingly relegated to the more unattractive men for commitment. She then finds herself holding her nose and selecting one of the more unattractive men who is eager to offer her commitment. She’s willing to select this man for marriage because, though he doesn’t fit the “attractive man” mold she’s grown accustomed to in her premarital sex life, he has other things she wants, like a job, stability, predictability, malleability, manipulability. She then spends the remainder of her marriage unhappy with him, because she’s not sexually attracted to him (though she does like him and care about him as a “friend” and “partner” and “father of her children”).
Another part of the emotional responses, thought patterns and behavioral responses I’m talking about here is “baggage”. Examples abound. The first category is “daddy issues”. Daddy didn’t love her enough. Daddy didn’t teach her how to relate to men. Daddy worked all the time and didn’t have time to be with her. Daddy wasn’t around because he was a drunk/cheat/asshole
/deadbeat/shiftless jerk.
The second category is former boyfriend/alpha widow issues. A boyfriend she loved deeply cheated on her and she broke up with him. A boyfriend she loved deeply dumped her for no apparent reason. Or things just “didn’t work out” with her college boyfriend because of his job or her grad school plans. Things “just didn’t work out” with another guy because he “didn’t respect my job and my career needs”. She was really hot for a guy who pumped and dumped her. She has extreme guilt because of an abortion after a former boyfriend knocked her up and wouldn’t marry her. She had “regret” sex with a guy while drunk/stoned/on Spring Break that she never would have had sex with in other circumstances. She has a pattern of drunk/high/stoned partying, followed by sex she “would never have had” had she been sober.
Women who have had these experiences learn to rationalize them all. The rationalization is a defense mechanism. These women’s experiences, the recollections of those experiences, and later events which “trigger” those recollections would all drive these women absolutely insane if they did not learn to rationalize them. Those rationalizations manifest internally as emotions, which if not harnessed and controlled, will later manifest as behaviors directed at the men in their lives. And that’s the “baggage” that the men who eventually marry these women have to deal with.
It is called the “Covenant of Grace”, and under it, we do not stone sinners; we call on them to turn to God, and be saved.
How does that appear to be working? Any thoughts on why it’s not? Could it be we aren’t preaching the same Gospel? The bad news for sinners is that they are being told that grace means that God loves them no matter what they do because they don’t have to repent of sin to turn to God. The God that called for the death of the unrepentant sinner in the Old Testament is the same God that will throw the unrepentant sinner into the lake of fire in the New Testament. Our God is a consuming fire.
A woman who had sex with a boyfriend in her early 20s, later came to know Christ, repented of her sins and turned her way around by age 25, and began to live right
What you fail to acknowledge Dave is that this person is the hybrid of a unicorn and a leprechaun in the West. Repentance isn’t a five minute prayer and a lifetime of “I’m saved no matter what atrocious thing I do” because “grace”. Grace is the power to walk uprightly. The Jezebellian’s like to focus on the free aspect of the gift and not it’s utility. Grace is designed to DO something.
Really if it wasn’t for grace nobody would have the ability to walk uprightly. It’s the thing most needed in times of temptation.
Grace is synonymous with “license to sin” in our culture. This is because God has “unmerited favor” upon us and all we do. The unmerited favor is the free part, the functional part is divine enablement to walk uprightly. God gave us the gift of the ability to walk uprightly when He showed us the way to the Cross, now we have to “take it up daily” and that is the sticking point.
For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
(Jud 1:4)
That is precisely what has rotted the “church” to the core right there.
The Orwellian proclamation that “A woman has a right to her own body,” means that she has the right to kill your children and/or seize your assets via the court system.
The brilliance of the cultural marxists, which nobodoy will ever see here as all ye bicker over the buttcocked leftovers, is that they leveraged women’s natural covetousness and rebellion to seize men’s assets and rob them of their life, liberty, and happiness.
Dear God! Can’t we just marry off Renee to Earl and close this thread already!
‘The Orwellian proclamation that “A woman has a right to her own body,” means that she has the right to kill your children and/or seize your assets via the court system.
The brilliance of the cultural marxists, which nobodoy will ever see here as all ye bicker over the buttcocked leftovers, is that they leveraged women’s natural covetousness and rebellion to seize men’s assets and rob them of their life, liberty, and happiness.’
The brilliance of cultural marxists is that nobody ever uses Scripture to refute their pointless claims.
‘Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.’
1 Cor 18-20
“Really if it wasn’t for grace nobody would have the ability to walk uprightly. It’s the thing most needed in times of temptation.”
No. What’s most needed in time of temptation is the knowlege that sin has consequences.
What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? …What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. _ Romans 6
‘No. What’s most needed in time of temptation is the knowlege that sin has consequences.’
That’s part of what grace is about.
@Poke, often God is gracious enough to show us the consequences of our actions, up to and including glimpses into Hell. Grace encompasses much of how He interacts with us. Most people complain about how evil He must be in this age (when they acknowledge He exists at all). They are like the children in the desert.
Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
(Rom 8:12-18)
“Dave, I hope you are not suggesting that 1Cor 7:38 is less than the Holy Spirit inspired word of God.”
Actually, Paul did admit that he didn’t get direct instructions from the Holy Ghost about certain passages there and that some of them were his own suggestions.
1 Cor 7:38 not being one of them.
I would also point out that even where Solomon is positively railing on in his flesh about “vanity” in Ecclesiastes it is still the inspired word of God. Are they God’s words? No. Are they God breathed for our instruction, yes.
Renee Harris says:
March 27, 2015 at 8:37 am
What the hell …. I been wondering for a while now if there are red pill dads with un-feminist Daughters and looking to marry such. Then why not dad and suitor talk about marriage expectations and the daughter preparation for marragie. Then daughter have the suitor in he as daddy friend. But over your could shift the role of Authority to the suitor . If she want to marry him at age 18 or 19 then good. Pros:
She’ll bese to submitting to suitor and if she is young when he show up she will be a virgin. ( in body AND mind) and suitor will be marrying into a bible believing and prancing family.
if they do not marry suitor have a red pill brother and friend….
Cons
Long time to wait and no guarantees of marriage.
I been thinking about this for two weeks…
That is how it used to be in the past. And still is in many parts of the world.
Have you approached your dad, and see if he could help in this regard?
Black women in America used to be much prettier, 30-40 years ago, vs. today, for reasons of obesity, fashion sense, and willingness to smile.
And attitude. For heaven’s sake, DO NOT forget the attitude…
On dad’s helping to facilitate marriage to their daughters. I’ve got two problems. First, after age eighteen, my influence changes from directive to persuasive. Secondly, redpill men are pretty rare on the ground.
I’ve got one friend who is strongly redpill and he has two sons who would be appropriate matches for my eldest, but they live three states away and she’s certainly not ready to marry yet.
thedeti: “They are accustomed to never having to answer to anyone and being able to simply walk away from relationships that don’t suit them in the moment. They’re completely unaccustomed to the give and take that always occurs in relationships. They find compromise extremely difficult because they’ve never had to do it …”
This is why a woman owning a DOG is a reg flag.
I once overheard a woman saying that she loved her dog because UNLIKE MEN her dog gave her unconditional love.
I interpreted this to mean that the men in her life demanded compromise. She actually had to GIVE as well as take. Whereas her dog only required that she fill his food bowl. Beyond that, she was free to live where she pleased, do with her time as she pleased, spend as she pleased. Her dog made no demands and happily accepted her every decision.
I’ve also noticed an epidemic of women with little white dogs. What is it with women and these toy dogs. Older women seem to prefer cats, but younger women prefer toy dogs.
I’ve got one friend who is strongly redpill and he has two sons who would be appropriate matches for my eldest, but they live three states away and she’s certainly not ready to marry yet.
Don’t give up, man. We can’t.
I have an 18 year old son headed off to college this fall. He has had a steady dose of red pill for about 2 years.
The next two (daugther, son and son on the way) are much younger.
dog gave her unconditional love.
Unconditional love is the most bizarre, child like fantasy that has arisen in the last few decades. I think what people mean when they say this is “unconditional approval of anything I do.”
“I’ve also noticed an epidemic of women with little white dogs. What is it with women and these toy dogs. Older women seem to prefer cats, but younger women prefer toy dogs.”
Maybe because having a dog is a good way to meet men? Men tend to like dogs over cats (at least the men I know), but they like bigger dogs that you can’t accidentally step on. A big dog may be too intimidating to these women. So a little dog is the perfect mix of dog that can also be controlled easier?
OT, but of interest: Fred Reed’s latest on Marriage (kind of a rehash of some essays he’s written over the past decade, but pure gold nonetheless):
http://fredoneverything.net/DontMarry.shtml
Luke says:
March 25, 2015 at 1:21 pm
The age at which women’s eggs start having ever-higher odds of giving you a Downs baby due to advancing age? NINETEEN.
That is hilarious. So, a 25-year-old woman is already too old? My, why can’t we marry them all by age 12!
According to old science, most women are still pretty safe until age 35. Beyond that age, their risks begin to rise to any appreciable degree. Even then, there are ways to test for these conditions.
She’s also guaranteed to have picked up awareness of the U.S. divorce/kangaroo court system, and probably no little bit of cultural influence. (Check to see if she has a television set or liberal magazines/newspapers in her apartment; any = culturally corrupted at least to some degree.)
This is where you come in as her husband. It is your duty to “brainwash” her the way you want, and turn her mind against all those degenerate American practices, and towards you and your family. Even the Bible mandated husbands to regularly “wash their wives with the word”. You will have to make her find her fulfillment in caring for you and your offspring. This is not as difficult as it looks like. No one will completely prepare your wife for you the way you want her; you will have to do that yourself. Parents are supposed to start the process, but you are expected to complete it. These days, most parents have not done a good job of preparing their daughters for marriage, leaving much of the work for the future husbands. The media/culture are making things near impossible as well. In some cases the women are so ill-prepared that they cannot be helped. Those are the types of women that men should completely avoid. But to expect a ready made woman for a wife is to expect a needle in a haystack. Once you are convinced that a woman has the preliminary training, and she is malleable enough, you can then take it from there, and mold her to suit you. I know, that is not nearly as easy as it sounds, but it is not impossible.
So, worst of both worlds, except there’ll be no need for you to pay for an English-whatever language she speaks interpreter at your frivorce hearing.
Unbelieving heart, repent!-:)
I’ve got one friend who is strongly redpill and he has two sons who would be appropriate matches for my eldest, but they live three states away and she’s certainly not ready to marry yet.
In these days of technology, three states away should sound like 2 blocks down the road. People generally don’t wait until they are ready for something before they prepare for it. I am already preparing for my trip in December. Yeah, I know it’s only March.
I’ve also noticed an epidemic of women with little white dogs. What is it with women and these toy dogs. Older women seem to prefer cats, but younger women prefer toy dogs.
In addition to being a conversation starter (as jbro mentions), it’s also that (1) women feel safer out walking or running with a dog and (2) a dog is kind of a personal beta substitute. It’s loyal, obedient, acts as a protector, makes her the center of its life, always wants to be with her, etc. It doesn’t provide, but that’s okay because she makes her own money anyway. And the dog doesn’t pester her for sex while she’s CC’ing. The dog is the perfect beta for a younger woman who hasn’t gotten to the epiphany phase yet and started to try to find a human beta to marry.
Cats are not good betas — they are too independent, aloof, and fickle. Cats are more like having other female friends around, once women get to the point where they are (or think they are) “past men”. So it makes sense that younger women have dogs (beta substitute while riding the CC) and older women have cats (more feminine, once they think they are “done with men”).
‘This is why a woman owning a DOG is a reg flag.
I once overheard a woman saying that she loved her dog because UNLIKE MEN her dog gave her unconditional love.’
Nah…it’s not the dog ownership. If women make it sound like they hate something about men, that’s the red flag.
Dave, you haven’t kept up.
Dave says:
March 27, 2015 at 12:07 pm
Luke says:
March 25, 2015 at 1:21 pm
The age at which women’s eggs start having ever-higher odds of giving you a Downs baby due to advancing age? NINETEEN.
“That is hilarious. So, a 25-year-old woman is already too old? My, why can’t we marry them all by age 12!
According to old science, most women are still pretty safe until age 35. Beyond that age, their risks begin to rise to any appreciable degree. Even then, there are ways to test for these conditions.”
(The following was confirmed for me by a fertility M.D. FTF, but I no longer have the link to the study.)
Actually, starting pretty much right around age 34, women have a degradation in the genetic quality of their ova that results in a roughly one-to-one reduction in life expectancy and vitality in all daughters they have. (There likely is something comparable that operates for sons from such genetically geriatric mothers, but the study I read only looked at daughters.) This means that a 38-YO genetic mother knocks on average 4 years, or about 5 1/2 percent off the life expectancy and health of 100% of the daughters she has. That doesn’t just mean that her progeny kick off at 75 instead of 79, with everything else the same til then. Rather, ALL THROUGH LIFE, those children are less healthy and more likely to die. This is universal, affecting all women, and can’t be tested for or otherwise avoided (save by genetic mothers all being younger than that). It’s likely related at least in part to telomere shortening, universal in all normal human cells, but that’s not yet nailed down last I heard.
Oh, and when you read about people that are past 105, still have their minds, and aren’t physically too badly off? The one thing they almost always have in common was they they had very young mothers. (This is why my wife and I didn’t even consider egg donors over the age of 24 when we went the fertility route to get our family.)
Putting a useless carousel-funding affirmative-action-made-possible cutsie “career” for a couple of decades before getting post-Wall baby rabies over becoming a mother at a early (e.g., traditional) age like 20 tops appears to border on child abuse. Women should knock off having children using their own ova past 30, using (young as possible/practical) donor ova as needed.
Hmm…that’s an interesting perspective, Luke. Do you think there’s any way I can spin that to convince the 20-year-olds whose mothers had them later in life that although I’m in my mid-30s, I’m actually pretty close to their age, since my mother had me young? 😉
No, Hank. Rather, you should use your greater income to pay for ova from an egg donor that’s under age 24 (down to 21’s not that hard to find, but I’ve seen down to 18 or 19). Then, spring for a gestational surrogate that’s under around age 27 (miscarriage rates go up like 2x for GSs even a little bit the other side of 30) . Then, hire the domestic help you need (1-2 nannies for first year, 1 governess for 0700-1800 hrs. M-F later, probably 1-2x/week housekeeper forever, firing them if they don’t work out, oh and have hidden cameras with live Internet feeds for you to view). Date if you wish, cohabitate (in a non-common-law state ONLY!!), marry if your brain gets melted by the heat from your crotch, but NEVER let any woman adopt your children. Then, you’ll both get to have a family, and be essentially assured you’ll get to raise your children to maturity.
So I can’t spin it, or I just shouldn’t spin it?
Latest from Lena Dunham:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/03/30/dog-or-jewish-boyfriend-a-quiz
‘Of relevance:
17. When I get home from the business trip, he ignores me for hours, sometimes days, forcing me to wonder whether he would be better off with a woman who has a less demanding career. “Why don’t you find some catalogue model who just sits around all day and rubs your back? I bet you’d like that,” I hiss. “I apologize for my many accomplishments. I’m sorry they mean nothing to you.”
Yes, this is intended to be humorous, but the underlying truth is obvious: modern woman who can’t understand why things about men that are attractive to her are not at all attractive to men. Likely because she can’t shed her feminist “men and women are the same” programming.
The rest of the article exhibits varying degrees of contempt, either for men or dogs as one chooses to read it. Doughgirl does not write all that well, either.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03/27/mathematics-of-love/
The rest of the article exhibits varying degrees of contempt, either for men or dogs as one chooses to read it. Doughgirl does not write all that well, either.
The typical American woman will have a difficult time respecting a man, and this is not surprising. Throughout her days she has been told that she is smarter than men, and the media continually denigrate men, and portray them as inbeciles, bumbling idiots, and never-do-wells, who always need their wives to rescue them. Even the government implicitly make her think that she is the preferred gender. And she slowly but surely believed all these lies…..until it is time for her to marry, when she realizes that the buffoon character on TV commercials actually has a mind of his own, and will not play the role assigned so readily. What a shock that is to her. What an eye opener that is.
MarcusD says:
March 27, 2015 at 3:16 pm
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03/27/mathematics-of-love/
‘Mathematics of love’ suggests the first 37% of your dating prospects won’t be worth your effort, study says.
There is something wrong with writers these days. They make sweeping conclusions based on ONE study. In many cases the study itself is suspect, as the number of subjects (called the power of the study) is ridiculously small and not representative of the population being studied. There is no field of science where this is done.
Marcus, not just the writers, but editors and publishers also. With circs falling they will wright anything that sounds sensational without the background checks that they did in the old days. Also, most news orgs have obliterated their research departments.
The problem is that being a beta provider to women, as Ma is looking for, is no longer valued by women. There was a time when a woman might think, I’m not super attracted to my husband, but he does take good care of me and our kids. Now she just thinks, I’m not super attracted to my husband, pass the alpha cock. Women have been told to get a job and take care of themselves and they don’t need a man to do anything for them, so they stopped valuing it. If she likes a piece of jewelry, she can afford to by it for herself. If I buy her a piece of jewelry, it’s not the one she would have bought herself. If I buy her dinner, it’s not the restaurant she would have chosen. All that any man can provide is no longer appreciated, it’s compared to what she could have had better on her own. The only thing she can’t give herself is time, attention, and cock. That’s all we have left to barter with.
And, something from Lean Dunham:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/03/30/dog-or-jewish-boyfriend-a-quiz
Oh, I didn’t see that it had been posted already…
“The problem is that being a beta provider to women, as Ma is looking for, is no longer valued by women.”
“All that any man can provide is no longer appreciated, it’s compared to what she could have had better on her own. The only thing she can’t give herself is time, attention, and cock. That’s all we have left to barter with.”
More women than men are graduating from college.
More women are making more money than men.
Women prefer men higher in status than them, in jobs, income, etc. (hypergamy). So who are these women going to marry?
So what will men offer women that women want from them now or even more so in the future? DNA is basically the only thing that women will need men for if they want children.
I predict seeing either many more single parent women (using sperm donation or from sleeping with the nearest alpha guy), many women accepting a polygamous relationship with a single alpha guy, or many women just staying single.
Women will gladly accept sharing a part of an alpha guy, rather than a lesser whole beta guy (just look at what is going on on any college campus where 80% of the women are dating only 20% of the guys, and ignoring 80% of the rest of the guys.).
There is something wrong with writers these days. They make sweeping conclusions based on ONE study. In many cases the study itself is suspect, as the number of subjects (called the power of the study) is ridiculously small and not representative of the population being studied. There is no field of science where this is done.
Yes, that seems to be how news is done now – a rather dubious conclusion is further enhanced by a journalist. The comment section gives some insight into the conclusions, though.
Scott
This goes with everything else about the Feminine imperative and the nature of women. If you haven’t notice female liberation is the absolving of any and all duties or responsibility from women. From abortion, to meeting standards of any kind based on actual performance, to Christianity, and wedding vows. This is feminism and female nature 101 and is the nuclear power plant that drives the hamster.
Beeker says:
March 27, 2015 at 4:26 pm
“More women than men are graduating from college.”
Yes, but many of those women are getting worthless degrees, that only give them massive undodgeable student loans (also known as “negative dowries”), making them unmarriageable. Oh, and those women are usually serious carousel riders in college, as well as being ~5 years older (and less attractive/fertile) when they get out. Lastly, their self-image will have gone up, rightly or (usually) wrongly, raising the level of what they expect in a husband. Think of 3-day-old baked goods that have had the price hiked 50% over the usual; don’t be surprised if there aren’t many customers…
Yes, but many of those women are getting worthless degrees, that only give them massive undodgeable student loans (also known as “negative dowries”), making them unmarriageable. Oh, and those women are usually serious carousel riders in college, as well as being ~5 years older (and less attractive/fertile) when they get out. Lastly, their self-image will have gone up, rightly or (usually) wrongly, raising the level of what they expect in a husband. Think of 3-day-old baked goods that have had the price hiked 50% over the usual; don’t be surprised if there aren’t many customers…
Unmarriageable? Don’t college educated women have the highest marriage rates and the lowest divorce rates? Seems like there are plenty of “customers”.
There are still good, marriageable women in America. More here.
Mmhmm says:
March 27, 2015 at 5:42 pm
“Unmarriageable? Don’t college educated women have the highest marriage rates and the lowest divorce rates? Seems like there are plenty of “customers”.”
If a woman college grad runs up debt for a STEM degree, she may well be able to pay it off (before or after marriage). Likewise, not every woman unwise enough to get a fluff degree runs up huge student loan debt doing so; daddy, scholarships, or at least having gone to a public college all can help avoid that.
Oh, and “highest marriage rates” these days, when compared to the 1950s (half or less the rate, as Dalrock has posted many times), is just being the last horse in line at the glue factory
I have yet to meet a devout Amish/Dunkard/Old Order Mennonite/German Baptist girl who went to college OR had a divorce.
“…many women accepting a polygamous relationship with a single alpha guy…”
as is already being pushed for in Russia and even in the US…..
…as was predicted….:
In that day seven women will take hold of one man and say, “We will eat our own food and provide our own clothes; only let us be called by your name. Take away our disgrace!”
Isaiah 4:1
Mmhmmm
Unmarriageable? Don’t college educated women have the highest marriage rates and the lowest divorce rates?
Sure, on surveys that include people under the age of 50 that’s true. See any problem with that data?
Seems like there are plenty of “customers”.
MmHmm…and what percentage of men under 30 in the US have ever been married? What is the median age for women to marry in the US, and what is the trend? Any clues in that more current data?
I’m sure the future looks great to you, looking in that rear view mirror.
“Why don’t you find some catalogue model who just sits around all day and rubs your back? I bet you’d like that,”
Well what man in his right mind wouldn’t?
Still I need to make a minor correction: “Why don’t you find some catalogue model who will make you a sandwich and rub your back? I bet you’d like that,”
Why yes, I would. How did you know?
JDG, on behalf of Farm Boy, I am obliged to point out that you may have misspelled “sammich”.
Just FYI.
The typical American woman will have a difficult time respecting a man, and this is not surprising. Throughout her days she has been told that she is smarter than men, and the media continually denigrate men, and portray them as inbeciles, bumbling idiots, and never-do-wells, who always need their wives to rescue them.
Yes and more. Women see other women holding their men in contempt on a regular basis , and women follow the herd.
Furthermore, for every guy a woman has slept with it is that much harder for her to bond with the next guy. The women like this that I have personally known usually do not respect the men they copulate with (or themselves for that matter, though they do put up a good facade).
I’m thinking that one of two possible scenarios may be at work with the sexually empowered woman of today.
1) she has additional trouble respecting a man because along with cultural pressures she has trouble bonding to him (due to the effects resulting from having had multiple partners).
or
2) she has trouble bonding with a man because she has trouble respecting him (due to effects resulting from having had multiple partners and effects from our culture’s misandry).
So is it tomayto or tomahto or neither?
Beeker @ 4:26 pm:
“Women prefer men higher in status than them, in jobs, income, etc. (hypergamy). So who are these women going to marry?”
Exactly. Women think getting educated/careered makes them more attractive to men but it actually makes MEN less attractive to THEM. Not to mention the delusions a woman picks up from being paid more for doing government Powerpoint than men do for mechanical engineering.
…
Scott @ March 26, 2015 at 8:48 pm:
“I wonder if my kids hate being the children of a psychologist.”
They’re just glad you aren’t a dentist making them brush their teeth every half-hour and banning all sugar from the house.
JDG, on behalf of Farm Boy, I am obliged to point out that you may have misspelled “sammich”.
Duly noted. Actually I was trying to stay in character with what I thought the woman would have said, but the proper word is “sammich” rest assured.
Don’t college educated women have the highest marriage rates and the lowest divorce rates?
Nevertheless, marriage rates are dropping for everyone. I wonder why?
@Gunner Q
Isn’t it funny how engineers are considered good to marry until girls actually meet them? Turns out the geeky guys in school… are now geeky men and maybe, maybe less socially awkward. Women need to be reprogrammed to understand the value of a man with outside interests that don’t involve getting blind drunk and hitting on chicks.
Then again, engineers attract each other like magnets in my experience. I hear we are a rare breed… but a good 70% of the people I randomly meet are engineers as well.
In answer to Ms Ma’s question about why men won’t pay, she should consider the answer to this question that I get asked regularly:-
” Where have all the good men gone?”
The answer:- ” Nowhere….. They are still around you …. The question should be..’ why won’t good men talk to you’ … until you answer that question you will not have a good man….”
So too with paying the bill …. In short. … she probably isn’t worth the hassle…… pity….
I’ve also noticed an epidemic of women with little white dogs. What is it with women and these toy dogs
It’s a substitute for the children she’ll never have. This is probably the main reason why SWPLs just love dogs. It seems like pet owners as a whole are turning into one bizarre subculture among many. I see it as a sign of cultural decline.
In addition to being a conversation starter (as jbro mentions), it’s also that (1) women feel safer out walking or running with a dog and (2) a dog is kind of a personal beta substitute. It’s loyal, obedient, acts as a protector, makes her the center of its life, always wants to be with her, etc.
I’ll have to disagree. A dog will make you feel safer only if it’s a large, well-trained, aggressive dog. And it’ll be loyal and obedient only if it gets proper training. Training a dog properly is hard work and takes a lot of time. The average dog-owning woman isn’t willing to do that.
Scott,
You get too academic there. Earl noted that he believed he could tell if a woman was lying about her N count. You stated that it was not possible to determine that based on your background as a psychologist (IIRC). I countered that this is not always the case. Did I note your position correctly?
I would be hesitant to fully trust what Earl has been told, but his reliance on context makes it much more believable. Most who lie do so with clear signs. I raised 4 children who were compelled to lie about things when it had no value of doing so. That makes me feel a bit more connection to it.
(Which did make me suspect a genetic component or early imprinting, both of which my wife and I had no control over.)
Your children probably won’t like it when you over complicate things, which I bet you frequently do, given your focus and background. (Not meant as an insult, just an observation.)
Saying all that, I would agree that it is not always a cut and dried issue. I am becoming convinced that some can lie and believe it because it has become a woven part of their character. Earl’s test may not be perfect, though completely discounting it is not necessary either.
embracing,
No one is condoning men who fornicate, Strawman.
That is not entirely true. PUAs and others are regularly praised in the comments.
====
On the issue whether it is the woman’s fault or the man’s: It is both!
God holds all involved with sin accountable. The one who sin holds the blame, including for feeding their desires that led to the sin. He also holds those who drag others down responsible. It will not be good for either. “I was tempted” is not a valid excuse, nor is “he/she was willing to follow.”
Holding only one side guilty will not deal with the root problem.
I’d like to add something I’ve read a few times: link along with a comment I thought quite insightful.
— Steve
There’s a few things to this. First, young women actually significantly outearn young men on average. This should be obvious. Feminists in fact claim this is due to more women earning college degrees (in Women’s Studies, snicker) so they should be paid more. This of course ignores the fact that young men with Ivy league degrees are also passed over for jobs and promotions, thanks to affirmative action. So a lot of men just don’t even have the cash.
Secondly, even outside of income, young women still actually enjoy significant resource access from both parents and government. This further increases the gap.
Thirdly, dates actually traditionally did not cost anything. The average date was something like a picnic in the park, with the food prepared by the woman, or spending time at a free dance, or chaperoned at each others’ parents homes.
Fourth, this chaperone and courtship process generally occurred while both were younger, and still lived with their parents. Nowadays while women will live with parents or have their rent paid for them by said parents, they expect young men to have their own apartments. In most places in the US, especially added on top of student loan debt, that is quite expensive to maintain. There really isn’t going to be much left over, if anything. Traditionally couples would get married when a match was found, with both being virgins, and then they’d move into a new house together. It was extremely common that they’d live with the man’s parents for a year or two while getting their feet under them too, and in fact this is still shockingly common overseas. Well, shocking to me, maybe not to the rest of you.
Fifth, as mentioned by others, women are toxic and only can give away sex, which doesn’t cost money for certain guys. The other guys wound up noticing.
Sixth, men’s sex drives decline as they age. Turns out the patriarchy mostly oppressed men, forcing them into provider roles while their hormones drove them wild in their teens and twenties. The dirty secret feminism doesn’t tell women is that the pathetic male thirstiness drops for all but the most pitiful examples of male in their 30s. This was not an issue in the past, when the marriage had already lasted for awhile, as males are very loyal creatures especially when bonding. It’s pretty commonly known now that females also need to bond but can sever that bond easier—hence why they initiate most divorces. But what isn’t as widely mentioned is that males also lose the ability to bond with a higher number of partners and as they age. So a man in his 30s is probably not overly interested anymore, and while society used to be able to just shame him, when the deal is so bad for him, he’s really not going to look to pay for an aging entitled princess (and forget marriage, that’s another can of worms).
Seventh, related to the previous, the “rape culture” hysteria and constantly attacking male sexuality and desire has managed to hasten its decline and death. The smarter men, the ones that would traditionally have more money and would be looking to marry younger, now opt out. They support themselves only, and they find they don’t need much, and they also find what most men learned throughout history: men can deal with being alone. Marriage was also designed to prevent females from being lonely, but since they have facebook and other validation from social media, they also don’t need it—-until that attention disappears as they age. But again, by then, it’s too late.
You put everything together, and feminists are mostly still relying on the unquenchable thirst of the male no matter how bad the terms are. But human males want nothing to do with a black widow setup, so they drop out.
Hello,
I am a woman commenting. I hope it is okay… I enjoyed a comment Dave wrote about repenting… People make mistakes, people sometimes grow in an abusive family(father in my case) and end up abusing themselves later on because that’s all they know. They are afraid of real love and intimacy(marriage) because they have only ever known abuse. The wounds are so profound and the feelings deep inside need to stay buried…A close relationship tends to bring out those wounds and what happens then? You escape…and go from one man to another, running away from yourself, your pain, your fears… Call me a slut or I guess repented slut…because I am no longer interested in sex…because I never enjoyed it while I did it…It was destructive and devoid of any love… I am trying to heal my wounds but I don’t know what I can hope for. I’m unworthy and a “damaged good” as they say. I’m also 32…I guess I’m too old as well. I have resigned myself to being alone the rest of my life minus the cats;). It’s a shame because I have a very good heart and never identified with feminism. I don’t hate men at all despite my upbringing. Not all men are bad…this much I know. I just can’t get myself to get close for long because I’m defective and I know it all too well being very introspective. I’m damaged beyond repair I feel… Well, I’m not sure why I’m posting this…Maybe just to show that some of us are not so horrible and disgusting whores…though I think I will still seen as such by many…
Regards,
Lily
[D: Welcome Lily.]
Red Pill Latecomer says:
March 24, 2015 at 10:20 am
“All you owe a gentleman for taking you out for the evening is the pleasure of your company.”
That might be worth the price of an evening out — IF her company was indeed a pleasure.
For her company to be a pleasure, she would need to be attractive — slender! — personable, friendly, polite, gracious, witty, and have her attention focused exclusively on the man during the date. No wandering eye, no talking about former boyfriends, no constant checking her cell phone.
Being in the company of such a woman — a true lady — is indeed worth the price of an evening out.
Unfortunately, many women seeking dates are overweight, slovenly, laden with kids, whiny, angry, complaining, and feel entitled. I was on one date where the woman spent fully half the time with her nose in her cell phone. She acknowledged she couldn’t resist checking her cell phone constantly all day long. She didn’t apologize for it, she just acknowledged it and continued doing it.
All girls grow into women. Not all become ladies. Yet every drunken skank on a Girls Gone Wild video demands to be called a lady — and men comply — so the term has lost its true meaning.
Agreed that only a small fraction of American women are ladies now, by any reasonable definition of the term. Most are BY DEFINITION “common women”, a very useful term sadly out of frequent usage.
Re a first date repeatedly checking her smartphone at length for nonwork purposes: I would not have put up with that for long. Either I would have said to her that apparently her date was with her phone, and IT could pay for her dinner, or I’d have just silently walked out of the restaurant after she responded to the second text or call (dropping money off at the cashier to cover only my part of the bill). If the electronic addict in question ran after me, I believe I’d have just told her “you flunked as a chick” and kept going.
You do face a challenge Lily. I am much older, in my 50s, but I still have a sex drive. Knowingly marrying someone that would not even participate in that makes such a connection highly unlikely.
I am skeptical whether anything can help you overcome your past, but I would actively seek God, including solid teachers and the Scriptures on the proper role of sex, especially as it relates to a marriage. That is your only chance for a long term connection, since sex is an expected glue that God setup, not man. Leaving it out will make any possible marriage weak and at risk all the time, for quite a few years at least.
(I guess Lily was a long time ago. Just noticed the other reply and saw her post.)