Robert Stacy McCain gets close, but misses the fact that women’s sexual impulses are no more naturally “pure” than men’s sexual impulses.
What feminist ideology tells young women they should do — being sexually “empowered” and expecting this empowerment to lead to “equality” in their relationships — is the exact opposite of what common sense based on an actual knowledge of human nature would advise them to do.
The accumulated wisdom of centuries still holds true. If you want to be loved, be lovable, and if you want to be respected, be respectable. As I tell young women, don’t just “play hard to get,” be hard to get. A girl who acts like trash thereby forfeits the right to complain that guys treat her like trash. One of the worst things feminism has done is to attack the sexual “double standard” by encouraging women to lower their standards, to screw around heedlessly and to view short-term “relationships” as an acceptable substitute for actual commitment.
The problem isn’t that feminists are tricking women into debauchery they don’t want with the lure of the double standard. The problem is that feminists are tempting women into the debauchery the women want with the lure of the double standard.
More directly, the solution isn’t for women to “be hard to get”. The right advice is:
If you want commitment, commit!
As astute as McCain is, he is overlooking the fact that women have driven the move away from true marriage and commitment, and instead sought out a lifetime of courtship.
Pingback: Don’t play hard to get. | Neoreactive
Pingback: Don’t play hard to get. | Manosphere.com
Spot on, Dalrock. “Oh, teh poor, poor, wimmenz, being tricked onto the cock carousel by those wascally feminists!” is what McCain is saying.
McCain is still putting women on a pedestal, as is typical of so-cons and trad-cons. He can’t believe that almost every woman out there is DTF at some point in her life, totally DTF.
He’s also confusing the nature of having standards versus femininity.
Having standards about the type of man that a woman likes (see: masculine) is different from how she should act when she finds one. Women should have standards to filter out what type of men they are with: players. Yet, often they don’t.
When she finds a man that has potential or is a strong masculine leader she should be respectful, encouraging, and enthusiastic to him. She should be willing to commit and submit to him.
Is there not some irony in that whereas men are the gatekeepers of commitment, commitment now leaves them hostages to fortune yet women being the gatekeepers of sexual access have been persuaded by those rascally Feminists (obviously men in drag – surely) to leave the gate wide open. If only I had been born later; for when I was a young-puppy, before the days of Tinder or Ashley Madison, most women were settled with a man at a young age (i.e. before they left school) and the idea of sleeping with five women in eight days (as in McCain’s article) was unthinkable – I was unlikely to meet so many as five women in a year let alone five available women. Then things changed.
Should we not however desist from using the term double standard, when in reality there is not one but two standards; a different standard for men and for women based on what each sex could bring to a marriage for the benefit of children i.e. respectively assets and chastity*: not that it has ever been considered acceptable for men to screw around, merely that those who succeeded in doing so clearly had an ability which one could only admire even as one deprecated the notion of women across the country being left barefoot and pregnant.
*Poor men are as undesirable as promiscuous women. Men of substance sought chaste women if only to ensure that the fruits of their labours were not wasted on another man’s progeny.
These are the fruits of the Tingle Gospel, that a man’s character is measured by a woman’s sexual attraction to him. This is how they can put their daith in the worst sorts of men, and be suspicious of even the.most honorable of men.
Imagine if it was taught that a woman’s character was measured by men’s erections. We would rightly reject that advice, and teach men not to be so shallow. But even sincere pastors teach the Tingle Gospel without blinking a lash, then wonder why their members are getting divorced, having flings with creeps, and burying themselves in 50 shades and Twilight.
“When she finds a man that has potential or is a strong masculine leader she should be respectful, encouraging, and enthusiastic to him. She should be willing to commit and submit to him.”
I agree DS, but most women in the age range of 18-25 are not looking for commitment anymore, unless it’s a man they just can’t pass up (older, masculine, leader, Christian (if she’s a Christian), and actually *ready* to settle down himself), and the men that turn them on (the more masculine, leader types) don’t tend to be the good guys that would want to settle down that early. It’s very rare for a woman to find all that she wants in a man (think the elusive “Alpha Provider”) at that age, for most women, it just doesn’t happen. And even if they did see him, were able to attract him, would the women themselves want to be married that young? While still in college? I remember hearing many girls on campus talk about that, how they would never want to be married that young, it’s their party time – some even declared they were never going to get married (probably products of divorce).
The problem is, either they can’t find men that truly attract them that are also good husband material, or find attractive men who want marriage themselves (the single pity-party women in their 30’s, 40’s, etc.), or they are enjoying their time partying and sleeping around and then have tons of sexual baggage they bring to a marriage later.
To be a single man who’s Christian and truly wanting to build a life with kids and marriage, in this dating market, would be hell.
Dalrock
It seems like the more you learn the more you learn the simpler it gets. Much easier to bring teen age daughters into the world now than even 2 years ago. The manosphere has advanced sociology
not to interrupt the churchian circle jerk, but dalrock, when you talk about feminism, why do you never measure its source?
when someone has cancer, they generally try to remove the tumor.
it seems that you would rather teach that cancer can be cured by learning “game.”
how is that working out? how did your game work on the supermemer courtszZlzozoz???? lzozlzoz
Deep Strength
When she finds a man that has potential or is a strong masculine leader she should be respectful, encouraging, and enthusiastic to him. She should be willing to commit and submit to him.
Paging Sheryl Sandberg, paging Sheryl “AF – BB” Sandberg…
I say in the book, date the bad boys, date the crazy boys, but do not marry them. Marry the boys who are going to change half of the diapers.
In other words, “Party first, career second, marriage later”. That’s what Rollo calls Open Hypergamy. It’s here, and being taught to young women in high school, then reinforced in college.
Church leaders, so-cons, trad-cons, etc. are still not up to speed on the cultural changes of the 1990’s such as covert AF-BB as McCain clearly demonstrates, thus they are utterly clueless about open hypergamy. They can’t even see the carousel, let alone figure out who’s riding it and why.
True, women aren’t being forced into debauchery, they choose it. Why do they choose it? Because we as a society have protected them on an individual level from the consequences of it. We can lecture day in and day out about the costs to society of what they are doing, but if it doesn’t impact them directly, why would they care? If the situation is going to be reversed, the protections need to be weakened, especially alimony and child support.
@da GBFM
Not all cancer can be removed. The cancer dalrock is fighting has spread ti too many organs, from the legal system, to Hollywood, academia, and even the church. Removing it isn’t possible from where he sits, but chemotherapy, radiation, and therapy may hold it back enough that the entire body doesn’t die.
McCain just doesn’t get it. Women can have high libidos when they are around attractive men.
Be hard to get? Lololollzzz Women try hard to get laid by hawt men.
Women’s libido is responsive and can spike when around hawt men.
Dragonfly,
I would also add timing. It is difficult for a woman to find a man she can’t pass up when she wants to. What I’ve observed among young women is they may meet a good guy in college and think “he’s great, but we are too young. Why couldn’t I have met him in about 5 years? Then I would be ready.” And so there’s this endless stringing along and the narrative of “we met and we were friends for a while. It took me a while to realize I had this great guy standing right in front of me.” A version of the “it just happened” narrative. What she probably did was have an on again, off again, maybe even long-distance relationship with “great guy” for a good 10 years so that she could get married around 28, once she’s completed her master’s, gone abroad and established her career. Basically, with this arrangement a woman can have a built in boyfriend for the times when she needs a date (like the annual company Christmas party) and she can live the single life the rest of the time without any questions from well-meaning family and friends about who she is dating.
I have a friend (a lawyer, and I know what you are going to say) who has been on again off again with her college boyfriend since college (she’s now 30). They have been long distance. When he decided to enroll in seminary closer to her, she had a freak out moment and told me “now I actually have to account for someone else’s needs. I actually have to be accountable to someone else” or something to that effect. Basically, long distance boyfriend is no longer an abstraction. Her single life veneer is cracking. And this was startling. I thought to myself, “this makes you nervous?!”
Refining McCain’s mistake a little, the assumption is all women are fainting-couch helpless mindless victims who only do what the college faculty tells them. Forgetting the obvious: not all young women go on Tinder, or want to. The ones who do have agency, and they have made the choice they do WANT to, as pointed out above. To the point where at least one writer for Slate xx has chortled that using Tinder, sex positivity for women is vindicated. They can now turn the objectifying tables on those silly eye-assaulting menz. With Tinder she can left-swipe and reject boys based on their appearance just as arbitrarily and cruelly as boys reject women they aren’t DTF, so hooray equalism! McCain usually picks up on such things, unusual he missed that one.
Trust says:
Dear Jesus,
“Not all cancer can be removed. The cancer dalrock is fighting has spread ti too many organs, from the legal system, to Hollywood, academia, and even the church. Removing it isn’t possible from where he sits, but chemotherapy, radiation, and therapy may hold it back enough that the entire body doesn’t die.”
Thus we are forgoing your teachings and the Law of Moses, and favoring game.
For you see Jesus, you had it easy in your times, up there on the cross.
And it is just so much harder to share your teachings on anonymous blogs these days, as we would be met with a wrath far greater than your crucifixion. WordPress might even banish us! The horror! Surely this is far greater than being crucified–don’t you see Jesus?
And so we teach game. 🙂
lzolzolzlzolz
Fred Flange,
Indeed. But women have been “swiping left” on men they didn’t find attractive since forever. Smart phone apps just make the process less messy and less personal.
Indeed. But women have been “swiping left” on men they didn’t find attractive since forever. Smart phone apps just make the process less messy and less personal.
I think it also has the tech impact of putting the whole thing on steroids because of the numbers game involved. So many more men than a woman would ever come across during the course of a day in real life, and therefore so much more opportunity to swipe and swipe and swipe and swipe. More swiping than was previously the case in real life, and more men, so the sifter goes into overdrive.
Tinder reminds me of women going through clothing on the discount rack when shopping — sift, sift, sift, sift, sift, sift, sift, sift … pull this one aside for a bit as a “maybe” … sift, sift, sift, sift, sift. This is kind of a common female selection behavior, and Tinder follows it too the tee — I can’t imagine an application that could be more closely tailored to the preferred female experience of almost never ending sifting like Tinder does. It interacts, therefore, in a very powerful way with a very common experience/modus operandi of women, and then puts it on steroids by the huge amount of numbers of men there. I think the scale of it, and the way it compares to the sifting women do when shopping (for example) mark it as being different from the “left swiping” that happened in real life, in a way that is similar to the difference between the stack of Playboys in the garage in 1977 and current broadband HD internet porn. Sometimes tech really does change things enough such that it becomes something different due to the scale which it permits.
True, women aren’t being forced into debauchery, they choose it. Why do they choose it? Because we as a society have protected them on an individual level from the consequences of it. If the situation is going to be reversed, the protections need to be weakened, especially alimony and child support.
This is correct. For all the blue-pillers that believe Feminism is a result of BC pill + normal “progress”, it should be noted that simply striking all child support laws from the books would topple Feminism essentially overnight.
“teh poor, poor, wimmenz”
Either you don’t know how the English language works, or you think the readers of this blog enjoy gibberish. Which is it, out of curiosity?
Another commenter over there pointed out something worth remembering: the VF article sounds like thousands and thousands of girls ‘n’ boys are Getting Jiggy through their phones, but the reality is far crueler. 80% of the women will only swipe right for the 15% of men comprising the good looking alphas and such. Yes those few, those happy few men can use their notch counts for a drinking game. But 85% of men are left swiped. And there are more men than women on Tinder to start with – though the averages of right swipes for pretty people may be closer to 50 -50.
One thing I cannot figure out for the life of me on these blogs (Dalrock, RM) is that if you’ve got good enough game the female will be attracted to you. I know true to life Alphas and not only are they very unhappy how life has turned out, but the women they have bedded treated them the same way I’ve seen Beta or Delta men treated by their girlfriends or wives.
That being said, if we return to shaming women and get back to putting them in place and become a patriarchy society women may not ride the carousel and emasculate men, but they will have those same thoughts and feelings running through them. Correct me if I’m wrong, but FI has only replaced patriarchy and have tried to shove down men to a lower value.
I have seen 8-9/10 HB with dorky guys with absolutely no game. These women were raised in more decent homes with standards and expectations, same as the men they were with. When you have to game women or wives do you not play into the FI? I know that has been hashed over, but the reality remains:
No patriarchy= FI= have to have game or MGTOW or both have to be traditional (rare)
Patriarchy= No FI= no game needed no MGTOW and WILL be traditional (do to the fact that the leadership will be cohesive building instead of FI= division)
Also, if it were a patriarchy on a local level ie. ‘say’ may marriage or yours, do this equate with wife “wanting” sex, and NOT being a controlling manipulative bitch? I guess not if we can boot them to the curb, but reality is that from the fall of man women will want to be controlling and manipulative regardless if you are Alpha or have a patriarchy relationship.
Ironically, game and the bible are in agreement. Game can be misused, just as a sword. Unfortunately, it is mostly used to score. Problem is, it isn’t about what is right it wronf, but what works. In fairy tale land, women would respond to flowers from good men. On earth, the respond to competition anxiety, being off balance, and having a man beyond their control. In an ideal world we wouldn’t need laws and prisons because everyone behaved. In the real world, that would be a disaster. Flowers and courtship, as good as they are, will not serve society if the result is the wrong men monopolizing women because we weren’t honest about how to handle women.
lzoozozlolz
lzolzolzolzlo
nothing to see here
move along now
go teach and preach game like a good churchiansz!!!
Trust says:
August 31, 2015 at 1:55 pm
“Ironically, game and the bible are in agreement. ”
Trust and Dalrock see this in the bible:
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/the-sixteen-commandments-of-poon/
By all means, wise sage, please do tell us how to remove the cancer, and what you are doing to achieve that goal.
Surely, you are practicing what you want dalrock to preach. No way you are a socialist, who preaches charity with other people’s time and money while being miserly with his own.
@jeff
“One thing I cannot figure out for the life of me on these blogs (Dalrock, RM) is that if you’ve got good enough game the female will be attracted to you.”
The truth isn’t found in the answers given bit in the questions asked.
“I know true to life Alphas and not only are they very unhappy how life has turned out, but the women they have bedded treated them the same way I’ve seen Beta or Delta men treated by their girlfriends or wives.”
Could it be that there is no such thing as a Greek alphabet soup to categorise men? Could it be that the practical execution of Alpha, Beta ect, doesn’t actually exist and is nothing more than a flawed and dysfunctional idea? Could it be that there is something else that attracts women and keeps them interested and submissive that does not involve “Game”?
FYI (if anyone cares): my reference to “The Madison” is to a a 60’s R&B dance record from Baltimore by that name. Featured in the original movie version of “Hairspray”. The soundtrack is full of local area 45’s, no doubt because, having been only local sellers and now long forgotten, they were cheap to license.
You are just a mocker, who takes things out of context. Heatiste poon is not in the bible, it is misuse of truth. Poon is shameful, but it works. Which is the whole point. What the serpent did to eve worked, what David did to Bathsheba worked, how a woman will seduce a man with words works. This is all biblical, but that doesn’t make it right, just true. Lying to ourselves about human nature and female hypergamy only results in chaos.
You are a fool.
The funny thing is
that Trust thinks
that Dalrock defines game and Christianity
and not Heartiste and Jesus Christ
His comments will thus never be deleted
mine will
lzlzozozozo
I think women also want to stay in permanent courtship with Jesus.
They love the part about His love winning them over, but not the part about Him being in all dominion, and requiring self-discipline and delivering rebuke.
The ol’ LJBF Jesus.
Those with this approach will fail with Jesus, just as they will fail with men.
If you want to belong to Jesus, and attend the marriage with Him in heaven, it will cost you everything.
Perhaps some women are more willing to drop $6 at Starbucks than they are to pay a price like that. Besides, there”s still time, right? Jesus will always want to be their friend, right?
The roots of feminism are in modern philosophy, which was not founded by the Jews. Well, one Jew–Spinoza–but he was hardly devoted to any discernible Jewish cause (to say the least). He attacked the Jews and Judaism and was excommunicated by his own Jewish community in Amsterdam.
Like all moderns, Spinoza was an atheist.
The Bible is full of uncomfortable truths about human nature. These truths can be used or misused. Let me repeat, just because something works doesn’t make it right to use to any end. These are truths and warnings, not playbooks to be promiscuous for Christians.
I think you know better.
‘Grey,’ ‘True Detective,’ and the Decline of the Alpha-Male Myth
…A lot of romance novels feature alpha males because they are seen as the only worthy victors of the hearts of alpha females. And yet again, there’s that self-abnegating strain of thought — that what a controlling woman really needs and doesn’t even know she needs is an even more controlling man. This is different from a romance between equals, in which compromise on both sides is inevitable. The terribly written caveman romance between the leads of Jurassic World stuck to this script, which was why it felt so deeply unromantic and gross. Big dinosaur eats smaller dinosaur.
If women are socialized to get off on the idea of being controlled and dominated sexually and emotionally by a man, it shouldn’t come as a surprise. It’s pretty much the only idea they’re ever told is appealing by culture. …
hey dalrockcckadss!!
ar elinks to wikipediasz allowed herezz!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_feminism
lzlozozlozlzlz
“Escoffier says:
August 31, 2015 at 2:20 pm
The roots of feminism are in modern philosophy, which was not founded by the Jews. Well, one Jew–Spinoza–but he was hardly devoted to any discernible Jewish cause (to say the least). He attacked the Jews and Judaism and was excommunicated by his own Jewish community in Amsterdam.
Like all moderns, Spinoza was an atheist.”
lzlozozolz
Oh wise oncologist, I’m yet to see you preach anything Jesus said. You probably deny Adam and Eve ate the fruit because it was wrong of the serpent to seduce her. Acknowledging how effective pride, envy, promiscuity and hypergamy are is not the same as endorsing their misuse.
Should I toss out a lolzlolzlolz in reverance for the wise and intellectual oncologist?
dear trust,
wot?
lzozolzlzo
lzozozolzo
GBFM is still playing cafeteria with the Bible. He excised the Song of Solomon because it teaches Game.
@Trust
“Acknowledging how effective pride, envy, promiscuity and hypergamy are is not the same as endorsing their misuse.”
Misuse? Doesn’t the Bible say that we are not to use them at all?
the fact that women have driven the move away from true marriage and commitment, and instead sought out a lifetime of courtship.
The church often teaches a lifetime of courtship is a woman’s right and a husband’s obligation. If he fails to properly court her and give her the tingles she is under no obligation to provide intimacy, reverence or submission. (Also if in a tingle-less relationship, a wife is under no obligation to keep commitment.) Al Mohler said a husband must earn the right to marriage bed, how by making his wife happy and all tingly. She bears no responsibility to enthusiastic about her husband, sex or her own life. Her ingratitude is prima facie that her husband is a overbearing jerk with unrealistic expectations and wouldn’t know good foreplay if it hit him in the head. The wife is under no obligation in this scheme to prepare her self for herself to love her husband, he is obligated to create, provoke inspire such feelings even without her cooperation. Go to a marriage counselor and receive the following counsel –“You are not loving your wife like Christ loved the church, if you were she would not be unhappy, take the love dare and change her by changing your self to love like 1 Cor. 13” She would likely be given some literature to help validate her feelings. Repentance is not a word used toward women in counseling. It has not yet occurred to the church that women love to complain, that unhappiness is power for them over their husbands and the perpetual courtship is in reality a form of monogamous prostitution. Dates and flowers for sex money for sex it is all the same thing when the covenant is replaced with the feminine directive.
Pingback: Don’t play hard to get. | Reaction Times
no9
Fair question. I didn’t word that well. What I mean by misuse is how we handle those realities of human nature to selfish or evil ends. By use, I mean acknowledging realities and acting accordingly. There is not a proper use of poor behavior, but there is a proper use of the reality of.human nature. For example, we know men are promiscuous, so tying the.availability of sex to marriage is good for society. Likewise, we know women are hypergamous, so giving.her cash.and prizes for wrecking.her family is a misuse that is bad for society (but may earn her vote).
Thank you for a fair question. Sorry about the periods, my phone is being glitchy and shifts if I try to correct.
“theasdgamer says:
August 31, 2015 at 2:43 pm
GBFM is still playing cafeteria with the Bible. He excised the Song of Solomon because it teaches Game.”
da oldt dteststamentz also teaches slavery and murdersz and haremsz many wivesz.
theasdgamer exalteth in engaes in all of these “virtues” he cleenratbates in da bible in between gaming womenz lzozolzlozoz
[D: I’ve added GBFM to the comment blacklist. This stopped being entertaining some time ago. I also added Mickey Singh over the weekend.]
@ GBFM:
You act like the insecure bully plodding around the junior high play ground exploiting any who appear weak to you. Do you feel less insecure as a man when you attack Jews? Perhaps you should visit the local half way house for the mentally retarded. I’m sure there you would find easy pickins to beat up on.
Your pussy behavior is testimony to the lack of parental integrity your parents displayed when they did whatever they did that they dubbed, “parenting”. You need to grow the fuck up!
view short-term “relationships” as an acceptable substitute for actual commitment.
I think you are missing the point – most young women aren’t looking for any type of commitment – so short-term relationships are preferable to long-term relationships – something for which I am profoundly grateful to Feminists for drilling into the heads of young women. Heck, just this past weekend I was with a young woman who’s primary complaint with her boyfriend was that “he’s always so serious and doesn’t just want to enjoy life”. So I gave her a life-experience that she won’t soon forget. Although I did try to leave her with more than just some of my DNA – I tried to leave her with some wisdom, that serious boyfriends provide “coverage” so that she can play without worrying about what may happen. Now, I do carry Plan-B for such occasions – but more than a few times, the timing isn’t right for that, so I just figure that if she’s willing to “do the crime” she is taking her chances as far as “doing the time” goes. A lot of women are turned on by taking the chance – especially when they have a boyfriend. Since she was at a party of a friend, I figured that I would be a bit more responsible than I usually am.
But the point is that the reason I target young women in the 18-25 age-group is because they want the experience WITHOUT any commitment. That way they know that there is no cost – they can just enjoy the moment, and tomorrow it’s just a private memory for which they have no cost. It’s like it never happened – except they get to remember how much fun it was, and check it off their “to-do” list. That is what young women are looking for today, and the wise man uses it to his advantage.
Could it be that there is no such thing as a Greek alphabet soup to categorise men? Could it be that the practical execution of Alpha, Beta ect, doesn’t actually exist and is nothing more than a flawed and dysfunctional idea? Could it be that there is something else that attracts women and keeps them interested and submissive that does not involve “Game”?
Could it be that you are a trolololol?
Red Pill question for christian wives or girlfriends that claim they are anti-feminist that shows that they are in fact feministic in their thinking?
It would be interesting, Dalrock, if you had some that did not have to do with submission or authority as that can be a discussion killer in and of itself and can be manipulated very easily. I would think more a long the lines of some of these topics on the blog but more subtle
Trust, women are promiscuous like men. I think you meant to say that men are polygamous.
Nailed it, TFH. Now I’m gonna go see Mrs. Gamer minus my shirt in my trailer trash persona.
A French kiss makeup ensued. Posted about the drama on my blog. It’s mostly about holding frame and the cost of being nice.
“This solipism is the reason for most of the confusion and anguish in male-female interactions. 80% of men and 99% of women will never figure this out.”
We men have been honest from the beginning about what we like in women. The cause of most romantic angst is that men love women but women love power, men assume women will not destroy everything for five minutes of Alpha and men don’t understand why good enough isn’t.
Even the Red Pill doesn’t help me understand female self-destruction. I mean, I see it happening and learned all the mechanics… but I still can’t grok why women don’t appreciate how easy and important it is to keep a husband happy.
Dalrock, you’ve missed the point of the entire Sex Trouble series at TOM. He’s certainly not placed women on a pedestal, nor has he been easy on the impulses of sinful women. He certainly loves his wife and daughters and has done all he can to raise his daughters properly. He hasn’t been easy on men in this mess either. What you’ve pointed to is just one piece that is taken out of the context of the entire series.
The Sex Trouble series is all about the damage radical feminism has done to relationships and politics. The comments are just as important and RSM has used them to hone the book. No one is spared.
Quartermaster, I’m not seeing anything that supports your claim in the article Dalrock liked to, and the comments are mostly blue pill, ignorant, drivel.
No surprise that he has daughters. Men with daughters are one of the pillars of feminism…
“If you want commitment, commit”!
I’d add to womankind, “If you want good men, give your sexual approval to good men, and good men only.”
Don’t behave like bitches on heat around Ballers, rappers, or anyone with money.
And while GBFM says things in stupid ways, he’s unfortunately right about feminism. Its’roots can’t be ignored.
I also added Mickey Singh over the weekend
Toni Basil is a sad panda now.
Neocon author says we can’t condemn college rape culture without condemning the sexual revolution itself.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/31/what-the-left-and-right-dont-get-about-campus-rape/
but I still can’t grok why women don’t appreciate how easy and important it is to keep a husband happy.
Because they no longer have to, so they don’t. The State is now both Sugar Daddy and surrogate husband. They don’t need to please no stinkin’ man no more.
@Quartermaster
I find RSM’s Sex Trouble series to be extremely useful and productive, but that doesn’t make him immune to pedestalizing women.
The main thing he gets wrong is his thinking that feminism does awful things to women. I mean, it does, but he misses the preceding point, that women want to do these evil things, and they accept the excuses easily when they’re offered.
Sure, the leaders of the feminist movement are monsters who are the enemies of all that’s good and sacred. But those other women didn’t have to accept the lies. They didn’t have to choose to accept the evil.
And while men probably will have to be the ones to implement the solution, that solution involves recognizing that women shouldn’t be involved in leadership positions, and they won’t use the vote responsibly. The things that need to be done to eliminate feminism are things RSM doesn’t have the stomach for. He still believes in equalism and doesn’t recognize the dissonance between that and his vehement opposition to feminism, or that keeping the one will inevitably lead to the other.
For example, robertstaceymccain in the comments:
But stop and think about this: Do we want to teach girls to model their behavior on what hedonistic promiscuous gay men were during in bathhouses in the 1970s? Is it “liberating” for women to be used as a source of cheap thrills?
Two obvious points (not obvious to tradcons):
First, he’s commenting on his own article that refers to Tinderellas, i.e. women that already are quite promiscuous. The horse is out of the barn, down the road and parading around on 5th Avenue, but he can’t see that. Second, the pedestalization is glaringly obvious is the second question; this is what those women want. If they did not want it, they would not do it.
McCain’s obvious and unexamined premise is that all the 20-something Tinderlla’s are just pining away for a hubby and kids. The reality of the AF-BB mating strategy is something he obviously is ignorant of, even though Sheryl Sandberg spelled it out in the national media, and if he can’t get that, McCain can’t even hope to have a clue about open hypergamy.
It’s like he’s writing text based on his own college experience, which was what, in the early 90’s?
McCain’s article would have been quite bold back in 1990 to 1995. My calendar tells me it’s 2015, and he’s way behind the curve on both the Sexual Market Place on the coasts and in flyover country, as well as totally out to lunch on female sexuality.
Oh, and this comment made me laugh out loud:
When I see PUA blogs giving advice on picking up women, I get angry because (a) if a move is really good, you destroy its value by sharing it widely, (b) a lot of PUA advice seems to be based on the idea that women enjoy being treated like crap, and (c) once women learn to recognize something as a “move,” that move becomes self-defeating, because you’re acting like a stereotype.
He doesn’t understand Game, either, but that’s not a surprise.
Robert Stacey McCain, boldly pushing back against the ’90’s a mere 20 years too late.
My self:
It’s like he’s writing text based on his own college experience, which was what, in the early 90’s?
My error, Robert Stacey McCain appears to have been in college in the early 80’s, which somewhat explains but does not excuse his ignorance. Kudos to him and his wife for raising six children and homeschooling them. That’s a good thing. He should stick to topics he knows something about, and the SMV clearly isn’t one of them.
My error, Robert Stacey McCain appears to have been in college in the early 80’s, which somewhat explains but does not excuse his ignorance. Kudos to him and his wife for raising six children and homeschooling them. That’s a good thing. He should stick to topics he knows something about, and the SMV clearly isn’t one of them.
This is actually a big problem.
I was in college in the second part of the 80s, and to be honest I think most of my age peers are just ignorant of the current young person’s SMP, to the point where they just project what the situation was in the 80s onto now and say “it’s all the same thing, come on” or something like that, because they are too lazy, too luddite, or too alienated by the youth culture to actually roll up their sleeves and see what is actually happening. As the parent of a 16yo boy, I have taken the roll up the sleeves approach, because it makes much more sense — but I also know that I am pretty outlier in this regard among my peer age cohort.
It isn’t a matter of playing hard to get. Young women are just not dating like they once were. I know many examples of women who are either dating no one or have taken themselves out of the MMV because they want to focus on a career. They’re full up on feminist worldview/yesteryear’s advice, telling them to graduate college, get a job, then look for a man.
Playing hard to get would require some sort of conscious decision to field romantic interest from (non alpha) men. That simply isn’t their first life goal. Just like with any other type of choice, the first round of selection is the most important.
As an effect of that, now there is no way for a man to learn game by experience due to the decline of the nightclub scene, except possibly cold approach daygame. In the past, society had structural alpha or alpha training of some sort. Feminism has not only worked hard to dismantle this, it’s worked hard to punish men who attempt to self-teach the necessary skills. For the latest example, just see Canada’s reaction to a peaceful lecture by Roosh V.
To me, our problem isn’t ONLY women playing hard to get.
Dalrock,
(shrugging)
I’m sorry man but what? How many women do you know (personally) who were proposed to by a man that said… “no.” I have known, none. Seriously. Every single woman that I know that had a man propose marriage, she said YES. Every single time. Every single woman. I have never known even one to say no.
So yes, she should commit. But Dalrock, so many of them never have the opportunity to do so…. they are never asked.
So yes, she should commit. But Dalrock, so many of them never have the opportunity to do so…. they are never asked.
He’s not talking about that. I don’t know how you could possibly think he was talking about women who turn down marriage proposals.
What he is talking about are women who think “Gee, this guy would be great long term, but I’m too young, and not ready for this now, I just wish I could put him in the freezer for (2-10) years and then dethaw him”. That’s what he’s talking about.
I know two women who turned down proposals.
“More directly, the solution isn’t for women to ‘be hard to get’. The right advice is:
If you want commitment, commit!
As astute as McCain is, he is overlooking the fact that women have driven the move away from true marriage and commitment, and instead sought out a lifetime of courtship.”
Of course, but you’re talking about two different things. He’s talking about it being hard to get in her pants, which is in fact a prerequisite for landing a good marriage. A quality husband will care about fidelity, both by instinct and good upbringing, and being hard to get (physically) is the girl game means of signalling it.
“What he is talking about are women who think ‘Gee, this guy would be great long term, but I’m too young, and not ready for this now, I just wish I could put him in the freezer for (2-10) years and then dethaw him’. That’s what he’s talking about.”
There are all kinds of dynamics driving that other than the time-honored practice of women playing, and being, hard to get. Women will always strive for that, because its what’s attractive to the best men.
There are all kinds of dynamics driving that other than the time-honored practice of women playing, and being, hard to get. Women will always strive for that, because its what’s attractive to the best men.
Which is why he switched it from being about being hard to get to being about being willing to commit. That is the bigger problem, because women are putting commitment on ice for years, and foregoing family formation. That’s the real issue.
Escoffier,
“The roots of feminism are in modern philosophy, which was not founded by the Jews. Well, one Jew–Spinoza–but he was hardly devoted to any discernible Jewish cause (to say the least). He attacked the Jews and Judaism and was excommunicated by his own Jewish community in Amsterdam.”
Of course, but many of the folks who have most readily taken to it and run with it have seen fit to retain their Jewish identity while losing the greater part of what made that identity worthwhile.
“That’s the real issue.”
Indeed it is, which is a good reason not to cloud it by tilting at a windmill that is more a hardwired part of human nature than a manifestation of that problem.
Re: “Game.”
I’ve beaten this drum before, and this looks like a good time to do it again. As Christians we know that Satan (and our fallen nature), cause us to seek pleasure, which can often lead to sin. There’s a reason for that: sin is pleasurable. The Bible openly says that in Hebrews 11:25.
Satan is incapable of creation, so everything he tempts us with (or that we tempt ourselves with) is a perversion of something good God created. Fornication is a perversion of eros within marriage. Sinful anger is a perversion of righteous indignation. License is a perversion of liberty.
God made masculinity attractive to women and femininity attractive to men. The attribute of masculinity can best be captured by a word Paul used in Titus: sōphronéō. I will note that sōphronéō itself is not limited to men, but the male manifestation of it is masculinity. What “Game” does is to take one aspect of sōphronéō (possessing the self mastery to be at ease in one’s own skin when dealing with others), and then distills it from its proper context and concentrates it into one’s dealings with women in order to trigger their hard-wired attraction for masculinity. Game is a perversion of godly masculinity. Game is a literal counterfeit: an attempt to pass off something of little value as something of greater value. Christian men ought to foster sōphronéō (indeed, the Bible is quite clear that we should), and leave “game” to men who need parlor tricks to seek sinful pleasure.
Gemini,
Seriously? How can the sincere, honorable, kind young man who wants to marry younger, the young man who wants to marry the beautiful, thin, young lady, succeed in even getting a date when she can have this?
Edinborough Housewife on dating
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=976287
Can emotional pain justify divorce?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=976293
@theasdgamer
“Could it be that you are a trolololol?”
Well should the origin of a thing not be inquired into? And again with the feminist mischaracterisation tactic.
Oh and I am still waiting for a reply “Why won’t he hurry up and die already?” August 30, 2015 at 12:42 am.
I often wonder whether and to what extent I am hopelessly out of date. I observed my own parents forever stuck in 1937, have a friendly acquaintance for whom it is always 1973 (as I tell him) and perhaps can only envy the frat-house boys of the 2010s and their effortless pump-and-dumps. Is there a danger that I, merely, in my lurid sexual fantasy imagine it as far more promiscuous than it really is, in much the same way that at the time of the sexual revolution my boss at the time assumed that not only did I have a girlfriend but that therefore sex was on tap over the weekends – without the benefit of clergy. How could I explain in my embarrassment that I had no such friend or so far as I could see any possibility of gaining one – there was that girl at the bus-stop who I had spoken to – perhaps she would accept an invitation to go out with me.
IBB assures us that he has never met anyone who proposed to a woman and was refused. This is true because he has not met me but had he done so I would have been able to tell him that I am one such. That was decades ago and I have not asked since.
By chance (it really was) last night (it was a public holiday in Great Britain though not to celebrate anything other than the end of summer) I came across a Facebook page for one of the branches of Planned Parenthood. I was particularly taken with one of their posters which read something like ‘Just because I am on Tinder does not mean that you should not respect me as a woman’. Elsewhere PP tell us that their customers are not judged. And so it went on: clearly these people are deeply ashamed of their actions and terrified of judgement thereof.
@Lyn87
Jeremiah 6: 15- 19
15 Were they ashamed when they committed abomination?
No, they were not at all ashamed;
they did not know how to blush.
Therefore they shall fall among those who fall;
at the time that I punish them, they shall be overthrown,”
says the LORD.
16 Thus says the LORD:
“Stand by the roads, and look,
and ask for the ancient paths,
where the good way is; and walk in it,
and find rest for your souls.
But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’
17 I set watchmen over you, saying,
‘Pay attention to the sound of the trumpet!’
But they said, ‘We will not pay attention.’
18 Therefore hear, O nations,
and know, O congregation, what will happen to them.
19 Hear, O earth; behold, I am bringing disaster upon this people,
the fruit of their devices,
because they have not paid attention to my words;
and as for my law, they have rejected it.
Dragonfly spouted:
Being a Christian is actually pretty awesome – and the more you are dedicated to building Christ’s Kingdom, the more you fit in with girls who also want to be followers of Jesus.
It does require a total life commitment (imagine that) and a willingness to put God first.
I get tired of the doom and gloom about how there are no chaste Christian girls left. (And a girl who chooses not to be chaste isn’t a Christian. Sorry, but that’s how it works.) They don’t hang around the manosphere tho or go on Christian dating websites.
Just when I think the reptile controlling IBB’s account can’t get any dumber, it does.
I know a friend who bombed 2 proposals. Had the unfortunate experience of being present for one.
IBB is like a walking apex fallacy.
“Not all cancer can be removed. The cancer dalrock is fighting has spread ti too many organs, from the legal system, to Hollywood, academia, and even the church. Removing it isn’t possible from where he sits, but chemotherapy, radiation, and therapy may hold it back enough that the entire body doesn’t die.”
It took a mere 40-50 years to reverse society from Patriarchy into gynocentricism. It will take a little more than that to bring it back. But much of this “cancer” could be effectively “radiated” within the same length of time. The big advantage that Patriarchy has is that it is more aligned to nature. Gynocentricism and feminism require a massive pumping operation to keep it afloat. Even the active participants (i.e. bleeding-heart feminists) must constantly keep up a psychological realignment through rationalization, to make their feminist beliefs acceptable to their more rational minds.
Right at this moment, even if nothing is done, this “cancer” will slowly begin to die a slow, painful but sure death, leaving only vestiges on the fringe here and there, and Patriarchy, like oil on water, will naturally rise to the surface, and reclaim the position it has occupied since the dawn of time.
Because of their parasitic nature, cancers rarely survive their hosts for long.
Personally, I am convinced that feminism will not survive another 40 years. At least not as a dominant force it is today.
FWIW,
My mother – back when she was a señorita doing modeling gigs part-time in the 1950’s – rejected some six legitimate marriage proposals.
Not that that has much to do with today’s issue: the world was a very different place back then.
—– / BREAK / —–
Remember, J N, IBB tells us that there are (two?) highly attractive, highly intelligent, highly educated, highly-paid professional, and virginal IBB daughters (early 30’s I believe) who have been utterly unable to find suitable men. The consensus is that if the description is accurate, they’re either not looking very hard or they have set their sights too high. In either case, they definitely waited too long if marriage / children was their goal. As I wrote a day or two ago: educated and accomplished? I’ll take Things men don’t care about for $1000, Alex.”
I cannot forbear to mention as it has just come to my mind: that one day a colleague of mine received a phone-call from a distraught mother to the effect that her daughter had turned down no less than nineteen proposals of marriage with the implication that this made her highly marriagable. Her purpose in phoning was to persuade him to persuade me to make offer number twenty: I had taken her out a few times and then nexted. I have sympathy for the daughter’s impossible position with such a domineering mother but I am not a registered charity.
I get tired of the doom and gloom about how there are no chaste Christian girls left. (And a girl who chooses not to be chaste isn’t a Christian. Sorry, but that’s how it works.) They don’t hang around the manosphere tho or go on Christian dating websites.
Preach it, brother. I totally, wholeheartedly agree with you.
I have said it before, that a whole lot of guys on this site who keep complaining, somewhat like Elijah, that there were no longer any righteous/chaste/desirable/godly/marriage-worthy women in America, are looking at the wrong places. Or they are simply too lazy to do the work of finding a great wife. Or they are too immobilized under the weight of their crushing unbelief to trust God to guide them.
At the same time, there are men on this site who are married to chaste, godly, and beautiful women. Yes, right here in America.
And I am fully confident that America still has literally millions of attractive, chaste and godly women who are praying everyday for God to send them a husband.
To those men out there who are looking for a chaste woman to marry:
1. Know that such women still exist, and they are not unicorns. This is fundamental. If you don’t believe that you’ll find what you are looking for, you’ll never find it, even if it is 2 inches from your very eyes. He who comes to God must believe that He rewards those who diligently seek Him and His guidance.
2. Make yourself desirable to women. There, I said it. Being an overweight, out of style, and socially awkward man is NOT attractive to women either. Hit the gym, bro. Cut down on the fatty McDees, and learn to dress well and smell well. And for heaven’s sakes, get some big hairy balls. There is no woman on the planet who is above your league. And I really mean that.
3. Make a clear definition of the type of woman you are after. Keep the list short and simple. Once this is done, accept no compromises.
4. Get off your behind to do the hard work of finding the wifey. Yes, finding a great wife takes real effort, and comes with lots of false leads and disappointments, folks. It takes time and money and you can’t get away from those. God will not drop a gorgeous, chaste and godly woman on your lap—the same way He did not drop your college degree on your lap. You gotta work for it, brother. You gotta “pay her price”; you gotta “fulfill her week”. Don’t waste time looking for the right woman in the wrong places.
5. And once you find her you will need to woo her. This is the foundation of your whole marriage. The plan here is to create a memory for her to last a lifetime, and to establish how you want your future to be like. If you want a patriarchal marriage then you will need to establish that during this time. Yes, it means you’ll be financially responsible for most of the courtship expenses.
6. Once you woo her, then waste no time in making her yours. The idea of “dating” endlessly for years on end is ungodly and unchristian, because it leads to unnecessary temptations and wastes precious time. It is ungodly to pray “Lead us not into temptations”, then immediately turn around, and expose ourselves to temptations through prolonged and aimless “dating”. Don’t go look for a wife unless you’re ready to get married.
7. And once you marry her, know that your work is not done. You must regularly brainwash her so that she begins to think and act like you. You will also need to keep her busy, either through multiple childbirths or through employment in your business or in your ministry.
Women don’t want commitment, they want ‘love’. Love: that feeling of ecstasy at the beginning of commitment. The self breaks down to accept another as a part of it. They want that ego-conquering feeling to be continual, as it would be their Eden. Their quest for the feeel has gone the way of many other appetites for pleasure under the blind guidance of secularism. The desperate among them have become ‘love’ junkies, or sluts.
GeminiXcX says:
August 31, 2015 at 11:23 pm
“So GBFM is now banished?”
Thank God (or in this case, Dalrock) if that is true. Cr&ppyTVforPoufters was just a repeated textual peeing all over this great forum, worse in some ways than many of the feminist repeat trolls. Having that attention whore gone from here is like getting an infected splinter gone; there will be no regrets.
As I wrote a day or two ago: educated and accomplished? I’ll take Things men don’t care about for $1000, Alex.”
Alternatively, “I’ll take ‘Things About Women That Repel Men’ For $1000, Alex.”
innocentbystanderboston says:
August 31, 2015 at 10:43 pm
“Every single woman that I know that had a man propose marriage, she said YES”
Is your wife posting again in your stead? Or are we to believe that anecdote = data? Considering the source of the anecdote, a poster who rotates between grasping the tenets of the red pill and blatant hard core feminism, the answer is no.
Allow me to retort. I have know multiple women who have rejected the marriage offers of multiple men. There. Whose anecdote is more true?
Women (AWALT) hate commitment from any but the most alpha of men. It is viewed as disgusting. A beta tell, a fungus, a plague of lack of testosterone. Women (AWALT) would rather be abused by and share an NFL player than have a Beta to themselves. Your daughters think like this. This disturbs you and forces you to come on here an tell false hoods.
Embrace the red pill. You are so close.
Regarding “Why buy cow if milk is free?”
Women love cads. Women see that sex works on betas to extract commitment because oxytocin. Women try to use sex to extract commitment from cads. Cads get milk from several cows at same time. Not too much milk from any single cow. Oxytocin not an issue for cads. Women’s strategy to extract commitment from cads fails. Women’s strategy to extract sex from cads succeeds. Betas’ strategy fails. Cads’ strategy succeeds.
@Dave says: September 1, 2015 at 5:30 am
“5. And once you find her you will need to woo her. This is the foundation of your whole marriage. The plan here is to create a memory for her to last a lifetime, and to establish how you want your future to be like.”
I was with you until this point. Provide a verse any where in the bible that says the husband is to constantly court a woman. This is the precursor to goddess worship. You are seconds away from it.
Next you’ll be quoting Driscoll, “man up and marry those unwed mothers”
Men looking at the current situation in modern america and making an accurate assessment of the battlefield are intelligent. You shame all through your diatribe calling them lazy, unwashed and socially awkward. You immediately shame and disqualify these men, thinking they are not right hitting the gym, tatted up, and getting action on Tinder.
Your precious Christian women are on Tinder. Right now. This very instant. And they show back up in Church on Sunday morning and say “TRU WUV WAITES”. They tell the pathetic cuckstians in church to wait for them, so they can get plowed by bad boys until their looks run out.
Those missionary trip that single women take? Those are excuses to get railed by exciting foreign men. And Betas can languish in church pews think about their precious unicorn while she “saves” non believers with her fornication.
Try harder.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/mum-launches-romantic-social-media-6360066#rlabs=2%20category
Lol! I can’t contain my laughter. Really?! This is exactly what women do when they go on ‘holiday’ and then they come home and lie about it. At least cheap lay is owning up and letting everyone know of her slutty ways.
As for the guy, keep a low profile and deny, deny, deny!
She also used her last bit of cash to track him down…. I wonder why?? Does she need a payday or something?
Well, duh! Who else is going to ‘man up’ and take care of them? The men who porked them? Get real, haha!
To all the folks who keep talking about chaste Christian women, I have a couple of things to say.
1. WHERE ARE THEY? I have asked this question all over the ‘sphere. No one has yet given me any sort of response, let alone a convincing one.
2. I will also note that those who say there are ‘chaste Christian women’, DO NOT also say that those chaste Christian women are actively seeking marriage or even that they are interested in marriage.
To be explicit about it: I do not believe for one second that there exist regiments on legions of chaste Christian women. And if there are such women, I do not believe for one second that they are even halfheartedly interested in getting married, much less that they’re trying to get married or looking for suitable men to marry them. And no, screwing the hawt guys is not “looking for suitable men”. No, hanging out in bars and going on one night stands is not “looking for suitable men”.
@Deti
Don’t disturb Delta Daddy Dave. He has unicorn daughters to marry off. They are pure as the driven snow, are not attracted to those dirty bad boy alphas, and their single girl missionary trips don’t involve saving non believers with sex.
Now be a good beta schlub and marry those single mothers!
thedeti says:
September 1, 2015 at 9:22 am
What you’ve witnessed is a sad example of Christian male solipsism at work (“Hey, my little obscure sect of one million believers worldwide, 1/100 of which make up my local congregation out in the middle of Nowhere, is just OVERFLOWING with Christ-adoring, virginal young lovelies just aching to marry a nice virginal Christian man. If you can’t join us, then I guess it just sucks to be you”).
@thedeti
I think your second point about chaste Christian women not being marriage-minded is closer to reality than your first. I can think of a few chaste Christian women, but they aren’t thinking about marriage. Or they may be but don’t want to say it for fear of betraying feminism. They are either not interested because they don’t think they should be or to say they are means other feminists will accuse them of being old-fashioned and backwards and pro-oppressing women. Or they subscribe to the “it just happens” narrative and think they can just wake up married. Or they are stringing some “good guy” along, taking the celibate boyfriend route. And of course there is school and career to think about. So they may not ride the carousel at all, or may just try it once in the name of fitting in with feminism, but they are definitely pre-occupied with other things.
Novaseeker
I was in college in the second part of the 80s, and to be honest I think most of my age peers are just ignorant of the current young person’s SMP, to the point where they just project what the situation was in the 80s onto now and say “it’s all the same thing, come on” or something like that, because they are too lazy, too luddite, or too alienated by the youth culture to actually roll up their sleeves and see what is actually happening.
I agree, it is a big problem, because too many people won’t even try to learn anything new, yet they insist “Oh, I know all about dating and college and what young people go through, derp, derp, derp” when they clearly do not. This destroys their credibility, frankly, and not just to the likes of me but more importantly to the younger people.
I’m imagining some 19 – 20 year old man, who has survived the misandric K-12 system more or less intact, who has just entered the hypermisandric college world … full of speech codes, “yes means yes” regulations, secret disciplinary tribunals for the crime “offending teh girlz”, hypergamous college women who “swipe left” 80% of men and spread easily for the other 20%, pedestalizing Churchian college ministries run by aging boomers…I’m imagining one of those young men reading McCain’s text. And what would that man’s reaction be? Would he laugh, bitterly, at the utter cluelessness? Would he snarl and close the tab? Would he stare in amazement at the sheer ignorance?
One thing for sure, he would not bother to ever read anything by The Other McCain again, because why waste time on irrelevant nonsense from someone so ignorant?
Yeah, NovaSeeker, it’s a problem. A big problem, because it’s not just the aging Boomers who are clueless, plenty of GenX that don’t really get it, either. As a result, we likely will see a fair amount of contempt developing within younger men for the older generations. That’s not going to work out well, if it happens.
1. WHERE ARE THEY? I have asked this question all over the ‘sphere. No one has yet given me any sort of response, let alone a convincing one.
“But in the prison where I worked as a doctor, practically every heroin-addicted prisoner whom I asked for the reason that he started to take the drug replied: “I fell in with the wrong crowd.” They said this with every appearance of sincerity, but at the same time they knew it to be nonsense: for if they had not, they would not have laughed when I said to them how strange it was that, though I had met many who had fallen in with the wrong crowd, I had never met any member of the wrong crowd itself. ” – Theodore Dalrymple
Provide a verse any where in the bible that says the husband is to constantly court a woman.
Song of Solomon
Those chaste single women are fattening themselves up.
Deti,
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that there are a lot of young unmarried Christian women who are chaste and would be willing to at least entertain marriage if they met a man who measured up.
But therein lies the rub (or rather rubs).
1. A lot of these girls are fat. Call me a shallow SOB, and other men may vary in their tolerance for adipose, but that’s a major turn-off. We tell guys the put down the fork and hit the gym… the girls need to do that as well.
2. They usually have an unrealistic view of their own place in the MMV pecking order, so they don’t consider the men in their league to measure up.
3. But even after we eliminate that group (which is a lot of them) we are still left with quite a few. But your phrase “regiments on legions of chaste Christian women” jumped out at me. You’re right: they don’t exist in regiments, or legions, or brigades, of battalions, or companies, or even platoons. You miiiiiight run across a fire-team, or maaaaaaaybe even a squad. And they are nearly indistinguishable from the unsuitable ones, since the unsuitable ones make a point of wearing the same uniform as the good ones, and churchians try so hard to make sure young men can’t tell them apart.
deti
1. WHERE ARE THEY? I have asked this question all over the ‘sphere. No one has yet given me any sort of response, let alone a convincing one.
I’ve asked that of a few people. Some embarassed shrugs mostly, but one man claimed that the campus group his daughter was in seemed to be a good one, as typically there would be one to three marriages per year, typically graduating seniors. Those women would be in the 18 – 22 age group, with some up to 24 (grad school). A conservative denomination (no lady preachers, etc.) runs it. A slim reed, to be sure.
The last mega-church I was in, I made a point to look around. Most of the 20-something women I saw were paired up with a man, some with children. Off hand it seems pretty clear to me that single 20-something men and women probably don’t go to church very much, unless they are part of a group (see paragraph one) or are still attending as part of a family. But my sample size is small, so maybe I’m mistaken.
@Gamer
Excellent way to obfuscate and not answer. Were you looking for an argument with your snark or were you trying to answer legitimately but failed?
How can the sincere, honorable, kind young man who wants to marry younger, the young man who wants to marry the beautiful, thin, young lady, succeed in even getting a date when she can have this?
This is basically a very high end form of prostitution. Yes, it’s “dating for pay”, but it includes sex, just like the rest of dating today generally does, so basically it’s sex for pay, just not on an a la carte basis.
@ entropy
Try to get your other neuron firing.
Your answer to everything is ‘Song of Soloman’. I think you’re stuck on it. It still doesn’t say he must constantly court her, in fact it doesn’t say so at all. It doesn’t even say anything about ‘gaming’ her. It’s just the song of two married people at the start of their marriage.
theasdgamer says:
September 1, 2015 at 9:49 am
Oh excellent! Ad Hominem attack! What joy! Shame from Dave and AD-hominem from you. What tactic from the feminist play book comes out next?
I think it goes… shame, ad hominem, song of solomon and repeat.
Illiteracy is rampant among you churchians.
Men will insult when other men say stupid 5h1t. Nice try at shaming, you mangina.
Can anyone show that they have actually read the Song of Solomon accurately? Without all the spiritualizing mumbo-jumbo?
I have posted about the SoS on my blog and none of you manginas have even commented there. So shut your pie holes.
Why not just post the part where it says the husband must game and court his wife constantly?
theasdgamer says: September 1, 2015 at 9:59 am
“Men will insult when other men say stupid 5h1t. Nice try at shaming, you mangina.”
To present an abbreviated version.
1. I ask for a specific verse showing continual wooing in the bible.
2. You reply with the vague and nonsensical answer “Song of Solomon”. If you wanted a legitimate argument you could have mentioned any verse in this book. But you didn’t
3. I asked if you were being snarky or merely failed to comprehend the questions or how to answer it.
4. You insulted with an Ad-Hominem attack. Then you did it again. Then you used “man up”
Is that how “real men” argue?
It’s how real alpha shame betas into taking left overs.
Reading the Song of Solomon, I’m reminded that he constantly tells his beloved how beautiful she is. Isn’t that kind of beta behaviour? He should have negged her at least twice in that song to offset the compliments. Now that would be gaming her.
I ask for a specific verse showing continual wooing in the bible.
Invalid Test Fallacy. Similar to asking for a specific verse saying “God is Triune” in the Bible. Or a verse saying that evolution is false.
I answered your question indirectly, but you weren’t clever enough to understand my answer. I’ll put the cookies on the lower shelf, no disrespect intended. The entire Song of Solomon is to be understood as applying to husband and wife, as well as to other lovers. Game is a constant thing in a marriage. Dalrock, Deti, MMSL, Heartiste, and your ‘umble servant understand this.
Dave
7. And once you marry her, know that your work is not done. You must regularly brainwash her so that she begins to think and act like you.
In other words, “maintain frame”, “maintain frame” and also “maintain frame”; fit her into your mission, not the other way around. “Pour the woman into your vase”, I once read elsewhere. However, I wonder how this will be feasible in the economy where women earn more money than men? We are already seeing this in the 25 – 30 age bracket in some STEM areas as well as in governmental cube-farms.
You will also need to keep her busy, either through multiple childbirths or through employment in your business or in your ministry.
A family business or more likely “set of family businesses” might be the best way to go in the current and future economy. Some of the 20-somethings I know are basically running two or three part time gigs that add up to a full time income. A woman who would destroy her own economy by frivorce might be a bit less eager to pull the trigger.
hater, it’s alpha to tell a woman she is beautiful after she is in your bed. Negs aren’t necessary if the man’s status is high compared to the woman’s beauty. You fail to really understand Game.
Song of Solomon is a newly wedded couple with both in intense love to the point they literally ‘adore’ each other. Solomon even says she is perfect, i.e. flawless. There is not one verse in there that says he must game and court her again and again, i.e. constantly. You are reading your own perverse standards into it.
adsgamer,
I have posted about the SoS on my blog and none of you manginas have even commented there. So shut your pie holes. – theadsgamer
I haven’t been following this argument much, but I have to say that if you expect Christian men to “take your word for it” when it comes to understanding the most enigmatic book of the bible, you should probably refrain from using phrases like “spiritualizing mumbo-jumbo.” Out of fairness, I went to your blog to see what you have written about the SoS, but I didn’t see it on the front page. What I did see was your latest post, wherein you describe how you and your wife squabbled like a couple of teenage school-girls, and how you reckon that you got the better of the exchange.
In fact, negs are counter-productive once you have gotten a woman’s interest. Negs are useful if a woman sees herself as out of your reach.
You just provide a verse in Song of Solomon that says he must game and court his own wife again and again.
Lyn, do you know that you can select a category? I have Song of Solomon as one of my categories.
@theasdgamer says: September 1, 2015 at 10:10 am
“Game is a constant thing in a marriage.”
Game is not what the poster who wrote this meant as wooing and you know it. He meant “wooing” in the beta-mangina, cuckstian, version. Flowers, candy, etc.
Perhaps we are arguing past each other. Are you asserting either of the following:
1. Wives must be constantly gamed in a marriage to remain attracted?
2. Wives must be supplicated to, entertained, bemused, catered to, bought gifts, for all intents and purposes worshiped?
Dave is clearly on board with #2.
I’m sure that calling people names and asking them to STFU would pull them in droves to your awesome blog. Speaking about being clueless….
Anyone who thinks game is necessary for a good marriage doesn’t understand what game is… or how to have a good marriage.
Game is a derivative and counterfeit form of masculinity – a poor distillation. Godly masculinity is the real deal.
No Lyn, you need to understand the real deal. You aren’t there yet. Song of Solomon and all that.
I’m sure that calling people names and asking them to STFU would pull them in droves to your awesome blog. Speaking about being clueless….
What if I’m not clueless? Why would I post something on my blog and then drive people away? Anti-Game. What purpose would it serve?
Fakk ’em.
@theasdgamer
“Men will insult when other men say stupid 5h1t. Nice try at shaming, you mangina.”
“Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless.” James1:26
“I have posted about the SoS on my blog and none of you manginas have even commented there.”
Oh… so is this why you are so emotional all the time? Do you want people to read your blog?
Dave @ 5:30 am:
“To those men out there who are looking for a chaste woman to marry:
1. Know that such women still exist, and they are not unicorns.”
Yeah, I assumed that.
“2. Make yourself desirable to women.”
I’m a 6’3″ martial artist with an interesting job and witty attitude. I can make girls laugh, at least in passing.
“3. Make a clear definition of the type of woman you are after. Keep the list short and simple. Once this is done, accept no compromises.”
I want a girl who smiles at me, appears to enjoy my company and does not resemble the Micheline Man’s goth daughter.
“4. Get off your behind to do the hard work of finding the wifey.”
It was my New Year’s Resolution to get at least a girlfriend. I stopped counting at 100 failed approaches because it was giving me depression. No girl smiled at me or appeared to enjoy my company except this one older, divorced, 200lb woman. Her skin hung off her bones because she used to weigh 400lbs. On the second date, she decided she could do better than me.
What now? Now it’s my turn to be hard to get. It’s my turn to sit in judgment of all the women desperate to be Mrs. Q. If girls want to be caught by a guy like me then they need to prod me in my cave. This dragon is done with fighting white knights to chase women who taste nothing like virgins and are just sick with cholesterol.
After several years of me playing hard-to-get, my mental health has improved greatly. Still no woman but hey, I’m getting the same results with much less effort now. Win!
@Gunner Q says:
According to Dave you are blind. There are hordes, literal and verifiable hordes, of virginal, chaste, marriage minded women, waiting, just waiting for men of GOD.
If you can’t find them, well what about single moms, “Look how good that turned out for Joseph” -Mark Driscoll.
I can make girls laugh, at least in passing.
Being a clown is beta because it’s try-hard. Being engagingly humorous is alpha. Alphas connect to women emotionally.
Beta: “I bet you tell that to all the guys.” Too direct. Too final. No emotional connection.
Alpha: “Who brought their little sister?” A humorous neg. Indirect. She will want to work to qualify herself. Strong emotional connection.
adsgamer,
Rather than just repeating “Song of Solomon” and “Please search through my blog” like some mantra, why don’t you try to demonstrate that you’ve mastered the subject here? You’re still hanging onto “game” like it’s important for a marriage (it’s not), and your frequent stories here (and on the front page of your blog right now) about the constant drama in your marriage doesn’t exactly recommend you as someone whose marriage advice ought to be taken seriously.
Less “game” and more masculinity.
Come one guys, just be like ‘thelsdgamer’ here and the chicks will be all over you.
What I did see was your latest post, wherein you describe how you and your wife squabbled like a couple of teenage school-girls
Mrs. Gamer had a roller-coaster ride. We have a strong emotional connection. Harmony has been restored. But betas will never understand about women needing emotional ups and downs. Betas hate women as women really are. Betas want women to act like men.
Looks like God created betas just to piss on adsgamer’s parade, Sheesh. Brings up an interesting question. Why did God create betas?
So they alphas can cuck them, duh!
I actually minimize emotional connections with women when I am out dancing, because to do otherwise would lead them on and cause me unnecessary drama.
I experimented once long ago with flirting when I asked two women to my truck one night, intending to tell them there that flirting was fun, but it wasn’t going anywhere. They ignored my overt message and were a pain for months.
@feministhater
‘thelsdgamer’
Obviously your game wasn’t up to scratch. You needed to neg them first, get their status below yours and then tell them to sit under his shade and drink his fruit.
“Mrs. Gamer had a roller-coaster ride.”
That seems to be a common theme in your posts. I wonder why your wife feels the needs – and the liberty – to constantly challenge you.
Okay… I don’t actually wonder because I’m pretty sure I know: you rely on game to manage her rather than masculinity to manage yourself. With “game” you’re only as good as your latest “neg,” whereas masculinity is a steady state. No wonder you’re always telling us about how she’s always testing you: 1) you’re as addicted to the drama as she is, 2) she has to keep checking you to see if you’ve still “got game,” and 3) since you rely on a series of temporary “game” solutions, you haven’t established your authority in her mind. Take it from a career soldier: people don’t constantly challenge those whose authority they respect.
I have to say… of all the men here, you are among the last I would seek marriage advice from.
One of the women was married and refused my offer. All night she was messing with her hair constantly when I was around and told me many times how great a job I was doing of leading. She refused, but tingles anyway. A long-term crush.
Mrs. Gamer doesn’t “constantly challenge me”. She is going through a time where she is changing a lot. Not that any of this is your business.
Lyn, how many times did you get laid last month? Once or twice? Thought so.
Lots of betas are military. Not impressive for managing women.
@ Lyn87
Drama is part of being in a relationship with a woman. I doubt that you even realize when drama is occurring in your relationship, so you don’t talk about it. Maybe you manage it off-handedly, IDK. But you likely don’t realize its importance to your wife. That might end up being a problem for you.
@theasdgamer
“One of the women was married and refused my offer. All night she was messing with her hair constantly when I was around and told me many times how great a job I was doing of leading. She refused, but tingles anyway. A long-term crush.”
Why does a self proclaimed alpha male feel the need to qualify himself?
adsgamer, if all the drama in your marriage is none of my business, you should probably not splatter it all over your blog and Dalrock’s blog as an example of how “tight” your “game” is. And it’s funny that you’d ask me how many times I got laid in the last month right after you say that the stuff you write about is none of my business. And I’m guessing you know pretty close to nothing about the military. But even if what you said is true (it’s not), it doesn’t change the fact that you are so wishy-washy that your wife feels both the need and the liberty to constantly challenge you. So, I repeat:
People don’t constantly challenge those whose authority they respect.
So instead of humble-bragging about having make-up sex with your wife after you applied your latest “Game band-aid” to her latest challenge to your tenuous headship, why don’t you ask me how many times my wife has challenged me in the last month?
Thought so.
@theasdgamer
I responded to everyone of your comments with a thought out answer. You ignored my last question. So, insult, insult, insult, obfuscate, and then ignore?
Des, I see your point, but mine was more that there is nothing inherently “Jewish” about the core ideas of modern philosophy, which underlay feminism. Modern Philosophy wasn’t even founded by Jews but by men who were born Christians (but who rejected all religion–Locke a possible exception). Spinoza was Jewish, but rather a latecomer and very derivative of those who came before him. And he didn’t just attack Jewish law and theology but the existing Jewish community of his day. He had no “ethnic solidarity” whatsoever and saw himself as being in full alignment with the Gentile moderns whose project (as they conceived it) was to create “progress” for the West, not to undermine the West. It has not turned out that way, in so many respects, but it’s important to realize the modernity was not intended as an anti-civilization or anti-Western movement.
That one finds a lot of ethnic Jews in various left-wing movements in later centuries is interesting, but is that the result of some anti-Western conspiracy? Or is it a byproduct of the fact that, from at least the 19th century on, Jews are over-represented (compared to their % in any Western population) in virtually all fields requiring high intelligence? They you have the parallel issue that it’s hard to deny massive Jewish contributions to Western Civilization in those centuries. So, if there was some conspiracy, it appears that a significant cohort either didn’t get the memo, or actively rejected the project and tried to work against it.
Guess how many times my wife has challenged me?! Yeah, that’s right! None!
Thought so!
Are you fellas disgusted, as I am, to see this meme spreading through popular culture and the media?
http://therightscoop.com/msnbc-host-fail-jesus-was-born-to-a-unwed-single-mom-and-a-doting-step-father/
A high ranking Catholic bigwig said something similar recently, also.
Anyone who reads the text critically will immediately note the disparity. Not only was Mary not a skank, she was submissive and feminine enough to take on the appearance of one (in the subtext, then, a skank-ho single mom is revealed as just about the worst thing a woman could be) if it benefitted God and/or her future husband.
Thus Mary is not only not a skank-ho single mom, she is the anti-skank to which we ought to be able to point to, as an ideal standard of femininity and healthy womanhood. Highly favored, without sin, etc.
You Christians (esp. those of you who take Mary as a serious historical character) should be raising non-stop Hell about this. It’s bullshit from beginning to end, consciously designed to mislead and derail your women and little girls. The scum who peddle this revisionist nonsense ought to get shouted down at every opportunity.
Regards,
Boxer
To the cynics asking where these women are, rural America is a good place to start. Even decent churches in smaller cities have some leads. Some campus groups too, as mentioned. Chaste and attractive, they are out there.
A couple of general comments:
– Women do want faithfulness, etc. in men. They just want it from men they are already attracted to. Though being too faithful can harm that attraction, unfortunately.
– Sin has consequences. All these women pursuing the AF BB strategy have consequences, they are just buried. VDs, attachment issues, etc. are all quite real. They just don’t show up for a long time. The piper will be paid, even though that may not get connected with why the payment was needed.
Modern philosophy was inaugurated by Rene Descartes. You’ve clearly never read his work, and you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Aside from old RD, notable Christians include the good Bishop Berkeley, Leibniz (inventor of the differential calculus), Isaac Newton, Hegel, Kierkegaard, among dozens of others.
Even their contemporary ideological descendants who were explicitly non-Christian acknowledged the church as their benefactor. Heidegger, the first atheist existentialist, was for all practical purposes, a Catholic philosopher. Jurgen Habermas (the only surviving member of the Frankfurt School) wrote extensively about the debt society has to the church in his treatise with Ratzinger “Dialectics of Secularization”.
Regards,
Boxer
Boxer, I’m disgusted.
@IBB (female version): “Every single woman. I have never known…So yes, she should commit. But Dalrock, so many of them never have the opportunity to do so…. they are never asked.”
She would commit to this Frankenstein monster we call “marriage” (2.0) but would she commit to an actual “marriage” (1.0).
No she wouldn’t- and even couldn’t- commit to marriage 1.0 and men should also not submit to marriage 2.0.
Checkmate.
@Lyn87: “Christian men ought to foster sōphronéō (indeed, the Bible is quite clear that we should), and leave “game” to men who need parlor tricks to seek sinful pleasure.”
You still don’t understand. Sophroneo essentially means being a strong, confident, indefatigable man. What you call “game” is SO 1990’s! We are past the fedoras and the parlor tricks and the focus is on developing (or at least faking) this Sophroneo of which you speak.
I moderate Married Red Pill (https://www.reddit.com/r/marriedredpill/) and we spend 90% of our time advising men about “game” in marriage. We use different language but the idea is the same. We tell guys to adopt the IDGAF attitude We tell guys to stop seeking validation from their women. We tell guys to shut up and be the strong, silent type. We tell guys not to complain or dump negative energy on their wife. All of these are characteristics of a man with abundant Sophroneo. All of these are the aim of good “game.”
@ASDGamer: “Provide a verse any where in the bible that says the husband is to constantly court a woman.
Song of Solomon”
I think I see the problem. To ASDGamer courting and “game” are apparently the same thing. I agree.
The Song of Solomon is about “game” not about “courtship” unless courtship is meant to include pounding sex, oral sex, anal sex, and hard core dread game. The Lover does not take his beloved on “dates” and he doesn’t bring her flowers. He pounds her into putty and then leaves her dripping and moaning and begging for him to stay with her- to the point she apparently gets herself arrested at the city gates for throwing a shit fit about her Lover. The Lover sings odes to her beauty, screws her, and then abandons her for long periods while she simmers like a juicy little pudding. That is the secret of the Song of Songs- Dread Game! It does the body good.
I didn’t follow the whole conversation, but are you married FH?
Women, even godly ones, will push against authority. Hopefully not as much and responding well can limit that, but see the curse on Eve for the underlying truth.
No, don’t worry Brad! That was the joke, can’t have a wife challenge you if you’re not married!
Agreed. If you don’t mind going foreign, there are even more prospects.
Look for the quiet girls on college campuses who study boring stuff (Chemistry, History, etc) rather than exciting stuff (Theatre, Art History). Once you find a pool of these women, carefully check out the home situation. Were they raised by an intact family? How does she speak of her father and grandfather? etc.
There are a lot of useless wimminz in the world. Leave them for playas like me to toy with. Only marry the woman who has the best prospects of being a decent wife and mother of your kids.
Boxer
Thanks Boxer. You’re not the chap who sexed up that French girl are you?
According to Dave you are blind. There are hordes, literal and verifiable hordes, of virginal, chaste, marriage minded women, waiting, just waiting for men of GOD.
Yeah. Dave would probably tell Gunner that due to his 6-foot, 3-inch tall frame, he just can’t see all the hordes of virginal young lovelies throwing themselves at his feet down below.
The comments are hilarious!
@feministhater
Have a beer on me.
Thanks, I’ll have two.
@Feminsthater: “Reading the Song of Solomon, I’m reminded that he constantly tells his beloved how beautiful she is”
Sure you tell the woman how beautiful her breasts are- while you unwrap them. The entire book is basic seduction 101 and it involves the special situation of the woman dripping to the tiles at the sight of her uber masculine lover, NOT the typical situation we have today between men and women.
@Lyn: ” you rely on game to manage her rather than masculinity to manage yourself.”
That is your problem- game is the development of masculinity or Sophreo, whatever and yes, you absolutely need game in marriage unless you are into the celibate marriage thing. I am amazed and astounded that celibate guys and guys in marriages who have sex 1-2 times a month can claim that game doesn’t work. Why the wife should just be attracted to me because…reasons.
Why can’t you guys understand that
1. Game WORKS.
2. Game works on WOMEN
3. Your wife is a woman
Therefore, Game works on women. Game activates the attraction triggers in women (Bonus Hint: they are all in the Song of Songs). If you want your wife to be sexually attracted you must have some “game.” You must be masculine, dominant, strong, decisive, and yes, superior to your wife.
You guys all fail miserably. There is no game or courtship to be had in the Song of Solomon, the guy didn’t need it, he was King. Trying to compare that to your average man is folly most foul.
@bluepillprofessor says:
“Why can’t you guys understand that Game works?”
No one. Not one single person in this thread said Game didn’t work. Also most are not saying that SOS is not rife with GAME.
You are tilting at straw men.
The argument is this.
Dave is saying that the bible espouses constant wooing (read blue pill, beta, mangina, supplication, presents, gifts poems, chivalry, goddess worship).
We assert that it does not, not anywhere. Not ever.
@feministhater says:
“Solomon, the guy didn’t need it, he was King. ”
What would you say to the idea that being king is game. Or more precisely “King is King of Game”
Regarding game. Even in the pickup world, there is a lot of disagreement about what game is and isn’t internal versus external blah blah blah.
After a couple years spent in that world, I came to the conclusion that most of the techniques of game were nothing more than training wheels to help men learn to stop putting women/pussy on a pedestal.
That was my conclusion anyway.
Dalrock,
I apologize if I fed the GBFM troll too Kitchen before he was blacklisted. While he fits the laughing fool in proverbs, his sentiments are common in rebellious circles. A lot of people confuse acknowledging human nature with an endorsement of any use of it.
In any case, this is your blog and I apologize if I contributed to any problems with the scoffer.
Much not kitchen. Autocomplete is my worst enema.
RE: Chaste Christian Women. It is endlessly entertaining to see how long and to what lengths Evangelical men and women will perpetuate the Myth of the Righteous Fox:
http://therationalmale.com/2011/12/08/chasing-amy/
This original article was written in 2003, and the quest continues for the next generation.
“Myth of the Righteous Fox.”
This is the garbage that Dave and IBB are selling. It is not true and it is not from the bible and it is not in any way christian. It is pure goddess worship.
Before we get too excited about Mlle Amyot, I’d like to say that I sense a scam:
She appeals without a proper explanation as to why she wants to once again meet this man, whose name not even his first name, she can recall; but with a story about a lost mobile phone where apparently he left his phone number – how (in)convenient . The only details of him that she gives is that he is cute (which says nothing) and that he is six feet tall. No other physical details, ethnicity or country of origin, physique, hair-colour or distinguishing marks or names of his friends, what he does or anything else about him is mentioned to assist the searchers other than the mention of a bar.
She appears from the video to have returned to Paradise to search for him so why the Youtube video which seems at least proficiently done and done with the aid of an accomplice – did that person also return? If she is searching on-line what need would there be for her to return and make a video in her low-cut bikini? She has started a Facebook page but why did she not use her own (I assume she had one) Facebook page rather than starting a new one. Why not return to the Bar where she met him rather than provide eye-candy on the beach for Youtube habituees? She gives no indication of what she has done to find him since returning to Paradise. Some think she is reading from an auto-cue and that it is a pay-per-click device to make money – as she speaks her eyes keep looking away to her left. She seems to have no sense of shame as if she is acting the part.
None of this rings true to me or perhaps she is just a strong empowered woman.
@theasdgamer says: September 1, 2015 at 10:10 am
“Game is a constant thing in a marriage.”
Game is not what the poster who wrote this meant as wooing and you know it. He meant “wooing” in the beta-mangina, cuckstian, version. Flowers, candy, etc.
Perhaps we are arguing past each other. Are you asserting either of the following:
1. Wives must be constantly gamed in a marriage to remain attracted?
2. Wives must be supplicated to, entertained, bemused, catered to, bought gifts, for all intents and purposes worshiped?
Dave is clearly on board with #2.
Ok, I missed the distinction and Dave’s position. Perhaps we are agreed.
Also most are not saying that SOS is not rife with GAME.
My blog posts about SoS and Game say otherwise. No replies. I win.
SoS aka “Game”
King is Apex Alpha. High status. Sure, King is not gonna be any of us, likely, but we can up our status.
One key observation about SoS is that the woman falls for the king before she knows that he is king. SoS is aimed at all the normal dudes. If you game well, your woman will treat you like a king. You can be king of your own castle.
Before we get too excited about Mlle Amyot, I’d like to say that I sense a scam:
What? You misogynist! I’m sure she’s totally sincere about her “last night in paradise” experience (which, by the way, completely proves that there is no such thing as Game and if there were it could never work except on really ugly skanks…).
Scam? In the modern world? By a modern woman? Opus, you’ve become too, too cynical.
@Trust:
“Much not kitchen. Autocomplete is my worst enema.”
I laughed really hard. I needed that. Thanks.
Pingback: Doom and gloom and the amount of attractive Christian virgins | Christianity and the manosphere
Guess how many times my wife has challenged me?! Yeah, that’s right! None!
Thought so!
Lol at the blind chode. How many times did you get laid last month…by your wife? (Mary Palm doesn’t count!)
@ Dave, deti, etc.
Re: the amount of attractive, Christian, virgins:
Conclusions:
In conclusion, there are approximately 100,000 Christian women in the US aged 18-29 who regularly attend Church, aren’t overweight or obese, and are virgins at marriage. This is approximately 0.4% of the 18-29 total population (100,000 / 25,000,000). Pretty rare.
Also,
Specifically, in any random Church the percentage that you’ll find a 18-29 year old attractive, Christian virgin is going to be .2 (virginity at marriage) * .312 (not overweight or obese) = 6.24%. In other words, about 1 in 16.
The main problem is that the top 10% Christian “alpha” will relationship her quick and marry her straight up, so it’s likely that your average Christian man will even get a shot. That’s worse odds than the traditional Pareto principle 80/20 rule which is about 1 in 4. In other words, you have to become the attractive top 5% of a man in order to have a good shot to get your attractive, virgin, Christian woman.
https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/doom-and-gloom-and-the-amount-of-attractive-christian-virgins/
None of this rings true to me or perhaps she is just a strong empowered woman
Maybe so, but the critical issue is: WB.
Women will always challenge men with whom they are thinking about having sex.
Another fallacy, that Game in marriage requires a lot of effort. Once you get the proper frame, it mostly is just par for the course. Just normal living. No special effort.
IBB,
I get it. It is you who don’t. Game is to Godly masculinity as a fake $5 bill is to a real $100 bill. But by all means keep peddling that snake oil.
Sure, a fake $5 may spend like real currency for a while, but sooner of later it will be detected, and the penalties are severe. Game is like that, as theadsgamer proves every time he writes about his troubles with his wife. Take a look at the post on his front page right now. Read it yourself in his own words: here’s the link. In this tale, he explains how he did something nice for his wife, she responded by blatantly disrespecting him in public, he got pissy and they yelled obscenities at each other, after which she chased him out of his own house for several hours, and when he came back she wasn’t interested in whatever he had to say, so he left again. Well thank heavens he didn’t go all beta on her! Nonono… he was “controlling the frame,” you see. Incredibly, he considers that exchange to be a “game” success story rather than an indication that his wife does not recognize his headship. That’s his “married game” that he hopes will result in make-up sex… as he sleeps in his truck, or on the couch. But there’s hope! He ends with this, “A brief roller coaster extreme dip…then an upswinging promise of passion later…we’ll see what follows tonight.” That story could make him a nominee for “Beta of the Month” over at “The Chateau.” If that’s the results of “married game” when it works, I’d hate to see what failure looks like.
I’ll repeat this again, since it’s so obvious, yet some STILL don’t get it:
People don’t constantly challenge those whose authority they respect.
How is that not completely obvious? If a man’s wife challenges him a lot, it means two things: she feels the need to, and she feels the liberty to. Both are VERY BAD. I’ll give you one thing, though, that’s what “game” will get you: constant challenges to see if you still have it. Since neither I nor my wife are 13-year-old girls, we choose to do without that drama.
Godly masculinity is where it’s at – why have a cheap knock-off when you can have the real thing?
Being King is being King. I believe ‘game’ is a senseless waste of time in the manner PUAs use it. Chasing tail is but a epic waste of ones talents and resources. The ‘game’ more commonly known here, which isn’t really ‘game’ at all as it focuses on improving your underlying attributes so as to improve ones talents and thus ability to obtain resources and live a productive life and not on women, is where I focus my energy now.
The inordinate amount of time that theasdgamer and others spend policing their wives is truly horrendous, I don’t wish it on my worst enemy. Truly… there are simply better ways to spend ones time.
“5. And once you find her you will need to woo her. This is the foundation of your whole marriage. The plan here is to create a memory for her to last a lifetime, and to establish how you want your future to be like.”
I was with you until this point. Provide a verse any where in the bible that says the husband is to constantly court a woman. This is the precursor to goddess worship. You are seconds away from it.
Lots and lots of projection on your part. I never said the man must constantly court his wife, and I never wrote that there was a Bible verse stating so. You made all that up in your mind, and projected them onto my simple, direct statements. You are the one to quote where I wrote what you claimed that I wrote.
When you find the woman that meets your criteria for marriage, you will need to convince her to marry you. This is what I meant by wooing. Each woman is different. Some are more easily convinced than the others. Whether you use Game or movies or dinners to convince her that you are her best shot at marriage, you are still wooing her. According to the dictionary, to woo is “to try to attract (someone, such as a customer, voter, worker, etc.) : to attempt to persuade (someone) to buy something from you, vote for you, work for you, etc.”
Extreme Game is more for those women who have already “crossed the road to the other side”. Marriageable women are often so vulnerable they really don’t need a lot of game. As a matter of fact, much of what is called “Game” is little more than highly choreographed normal male-female interactions. The girl I am dating right now did not need a lot of game at all. I mean, I had to consciously dial it down, because she readily and proudly took her position as the woman in the relationship, and allowed me, right from the outset, to determine the direction of our relationship. And yes, she is outspoken, but you cannot mistake the femininity emanating from her.
Dave is saying that the bible espouses constant wooing (read blue pill, beta, mangina, supplication, presents, gifts poems, chivalry, goddess worship).
Where did I say that and which Bible verse did I quote? Maybe you might want to re-read what I wrote.
“Game is a constant thing in a marriage.”
Game is not what the poster who wrote this meant as wooing and you know it. He meant “wooing” in the beta-mangina, cuckstian, version. Flowers, candy, etc.
I didn’t know you could read minds. You even knew what I meant more than myself. Interesting.
In case you are still not getting it: Game is a form of wooing. As stated above, flowers, gaming, movies, fixing her broken door and changing the oil in her car or even negging are ALL directed to one goal: to convince her that you are the best shot she has at marriage. And that is what wooing means. You are free to try and come up with a better definition.
Don’t disturb Delta Daddy Dave. He has unicorn daughters to marry off. They are pure as the driven snow, are not attracted to those dirty bad boy alphas, and their single girl missionary trips don’t involve saving non believers with sex.
Really? Actually I have no daughters at all. But if I did I would prepare them for the right guy.
Modern philosophy was inaugurated by Machiavelli, not Descartes. Descartes is arguably the inventor of modern science, but modern science is derivative of modern philosophy. Descartes, too, was an atheist.
@DeepStrength, not that it would change the numbers appreciably, but I would argue that women aged 18-29 are likely to be less obese or overweight than the population as a whole. So, perhaps there are 200K.
Lol, only attractive men have a chance at beautiful and virginal women. Song of Solomon says it right in the beginning.
Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth!
For your love is better than wine;
3 your anointing oils are fragrant;
your name is oil poured out;
therefore virgins love you.
4 Draw me after you; let us run.
The king has brought me into his chambers.
Yeah, you really think the average man can compete with that…. didn’t think so. Stop trying to find a virgin wife unless you are a King Solomon status and looks kind of man. And then you have the choice of virgins..
Oh?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/
Deep Strength, good for you on doing the math. As you noted in your piece, some of the factors overlap (like increasing religiosity being linked to chastity), and anon_ng is correct that obesity increases with age quite a lot, but your “napkin math” sheds a lot of light on the issue,and is a valuable contribution to the discussion. I’ll add another factor that, if anything, makes the odds worse: dissimilar religions. A devout Hindu girl may be holding out for marriage, but she’s not a candidate for a Christian man. Granted, most religious people in the US identify as some sort of Christian, but there are stark differences. A devout Baptist isn’t going to marry a Mormon or a Jehovah’s Witness, although all identify as “Christian.” I was dating a very cute girl at one point and things were getting serious, but she was Catholic. She wasn’t even practicing, but she was adamant about not becoming Protestant. That was probably a contributing factor to our drifting apart (for which I am grateful – it probably would have been a bad match no matter what). A lot of marriages will work across denominations (my wife and I weren’t the same denomination when we met), but many will not. Of course that’s mitigated by the fact that really devout girls won’t marry outside their circle of acceptable denominations, either… (stats…/sigh). All that is to say that the raw numbers for a young man in any given denomination may be even more dire than you calculated.
I don’t envy the younger guys at all.
@ Dave:
“When you find the woman that meets your criteria for marriage, you will need to convince her to marry you.”
No. She should convince herself that you’re right for her; and then she should set about demonstrating to you why she would be a good wife for you.
@Dave
Thanks for ruining my straw man argument. You were performing it beautifully.
@ Dave:
“When you find the woman that meets your criteria for marriage, you will need to convince her to marry you.”
No. She should convince herself that you’re right for her; and then she should set about demonstrating to you why she would be a good wife for you.
No wonder many men will remain single. She already convinced you she is wife material, and that is why she is on your radar in the first place. It’s now your turn to let her know she won’t get a better man than you.
Good work, Deep Strength. Thanks for running the numbers. Hopefully this will put to rest the fantasy of “lots and lots” of chaste Christian girls just DYING to get married.
100,000 Christian women who aren’t overweight, are virgins, and regularly attend church.
100,000 women in the ENTIRE UNITED STATES.
That doesn’t qualify even as a drop in the bucket. That’s a drop in an ocean.
Up the percentages. Assume that virginity isn’t required. Give a girl a leeway for a decision to have sex previously. That probably gets you to girls with N=2; who regularly attend church and who aren’t overweight. I’ll be really generous and estimate it at 1 million.
Again — that’s STILL a drop in the bucket. One million women in the eligible age range. Very, very, bad odds.
But let’s look at another limiting variable: How many of those 100,000 to 1 million women are actively seeking marriage? Cut both of those numbers in half, because at least half aren’t really all that interested in marriage and are not seeking spouses.
That’s 50,000 to 500,000 women IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY who are marriage eligible and available.
Dave:
She’s on his radar BECAUSE SHE’S PHYSICALLY ATTRACTIVE, not because he’s looking for a wife. He’s dating her and in a relationship with her because he wants to be with her. If she isn’t convinced she should marry him by the time he gets to asking her, his asking her isn’t going to convince her.
Don’t be too impressed when a modern writes about “God.” Hobbes dedicated whole book of Leviathan to “proving” that his teaching is consistent with the Bible. The whole thing is sham, which a careful reading shows. Machiavelli talks about “our religion” and Christianity showing “the truth and the true way” and so on. You have to look under the hood to see what he really believed. Same with Descartes. His entire scientific argument presumes the non-teleological character of the universe and is incompatible with revealed religion. One can either assume that Descartes didn’t realize this, or that he did, and said both things in different places for a reason. I believe the latter.
His great antagonist Pascal I believe was a genuinely faithful man but his philosophy is not modern, despite the times in which he lived.
That’s 50,000 to 500,000 women IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY who are marriage eligible and available.
That, among many other things, would serve as an insufferable embarrassment if Christians and their churches felt any shame.
@ Anonymous_ng and thedeti
I found some better data so I revised the post.
Instead of the normal adult obesity rate of 68.8% I found in this article that the obesity rate of 20-39 year old women is 58.5%. In actuality, it may be close to 50% or so given that obesity will rise in the 30-39 range range.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1832542
This revises the estimates using the 58.8% obesity rate to:
In conclusion, there are approximately 100,000 Christian women in the US aged 18-29 who regularly attend Church, aren’t overweight or obese, and are virgins at marriage. This is approximately 0.5% of the 18-29 total population (126,157 / 25,332,752). Pretty rare. In the US total population it is .039% (126,157 / 320,090,000).
and
Specifically, in any random Church the percentage that you’ll find a 18-29 year old attractive, Christian virgin is going to be .2 (virginity at marriage) * .415 (not overweight or obese) = 8.30%. In other words, about 1 in 12.
Slightly better odds but still 1 in 16 and 1 in 12 might as well be the same. Only the top 10% of Christian men will be able to marry an attractive Christian virgin.
Additionally, even if the overweight and obesity rate is cut to 50% then the data still indicates a 1 in 10 ratio in the 18-29 year olds in Church of being both a virgin and attractive, and approximately 150,000 women (151,996 to be exact). 200,000 women is an overestimate.
Still, only the top 10% of single Christian men will be able to marry an attractive Christian virgin.
Oops, the first 100,000 should read: 126,157
^^^ See. A veritable flood.
Let’s not be too hard on McCain; when it comes to willful blindness he has yet to surpass the leaders of the modern evangelical church. For a great demonstration, see the following series of tweets from Andy Crouch:
. . . . Because when you want a lasting relationship, everyone knows that Tinder is the place to go!
Your default presumption of qualifying for a woman’s intimacy, to say nothing about commitment, is the sign of a scarcity mentality. That’s one of the core problems with contemporary Christian men, feminization in the church has conditioned them to put women on a pedestal before they even meet a woman that meets whatever meager criteria they allow themselves to believe they can have for a wife.
In a larger scope it’s women who receive all of the benefits of marriage (legally and socially), but even still, men must perform well enough to convince a woman to marry him. For a religion that nominally grants men authority over women this situation strikes me as yet one more indicator of how feminine primacy has infiltrated not just the church, but the upbringing of men within that church.
. . . . Because when you want a lasting relationship, everyone knows that Tinder is the place to go!
Well, surely a man will meet the bee-yoo-tee-ful but humble girl who has been overshadowed by her wicked stepsisters, right?
Everyone’s heard of Tinderella…
@AR:
“Tinderella”. That’s GOT to go on Deti’s list.
Your default presumption of qualifying for a woman’s intimacy, to say nothing about commitment, is the sign of a scarcity mentality. That’s one of the core problems with contemporary Christian men, feminization in the church has conditioned them to put women on a pedestal before they even meet a woman that meets whatever meager criteria they allow themselves to believe they can have for a wife.
Actually, marriageable women are relatively scarce, as most men in this forum will readily admit. Even in biblical times they were a scarce lot. Abraham made his servant take a journey into a foreign country to go look for a wife for his son. The author of Proverbs asked the rhetoric question, “Who can find a virtuous woman?..”, implying her scarcity.
Probably two of the reasons why many men end up with unmarriageable wives is either because they did not want to do the hard work of looking for this scarce woman, or they have gone to the other extreme, thinking she does not even exist.
Still, only the top 10% of single Christian men will be able to marry an attractive Christian virgin.
Why not raise the odds? Let the men get down to the serious business of soul winning, reaching the unsaved and restoring the fallen. In 10-20 years, there will be more chaste women in the church than are men to marry them.
Very true. All the same, I don’t think they’re as scarce as the naysayers around here are making out. I mean, there are several dozen solid bros who post in the comments section here, and they have wives. What, did these guys win some wife lottery against such incredibly long odds? Did they wife up skanks who miraculously turned into wife-material? I think it’s more likely that most of them found marriagable women from a much larger pool than is acknowledged.
In the echo chamber of the manosphere it’s easy to descend beyond the “women, what can you do?” mentality (that nearly every man has indulged in at least once) to the “all women are whores” delusion. This is understandable, but it’s clearly not the case that all (or nearly all) women are terrible.
I think part of the problem is also due to the fact that the skanks are skilled at tripping our attraction triggers. While you’re looking at Blondie McFunbags’ cleavage, there are three or four plain jane girls in the background who aren’t attention-whoring, that you haven’t noticed in your distracted state. Marriage minded young bros might need to quit gaming these skanks into a wedding dress, and start looking in the background for someone more suitable for a long-term investment.
Just my take…
Boxer
Yeah, you really think the average man can compete with that
The average alpha, sure. The average beta, no way in h311. “It’s the Hamster, stupid.”
All alphas are “good looking” thanks to the power of the Hamster.
@ Lyn87
“Godly masculinity” is snake oil. Go peddle it elsewhere. I prefer the Bible.
And a good thing that you are omniscient, so that you know how much my wife challenges me. Where are your worshippers meeting these days?
Was yelling at my wife beta? Sure. Was leaving the house beta? No, it was the smart thing to do. Funny how you ignore all the other IMPORTANT stuff I wrote about. Why did you ignore it? Because it shuts down your whole assertion about Game. You are an anti-Game imbecile.
You churchian anti-Game betas just are never gonna get it, even when your noses are rubbed in it. No wonder you get disrespect. And you don’t get laid much by your wives, either.
Hie thee to the Masturbatorium!
Looks like Rollo has the church down pat. Game is the devil, game is the devil. We have to pedistalize that pussy so she will be pleased with us.
@ Lyn87
My wife has made over 20 passes at me today, figuring conservatively. Women don’t act that way around betas–even wives. An alpha can act beta sometimes, but even when an alpha acts beta, it feels alpha to women. I don’t know how to explain it other than to say that an alpha doesn’t supplicate women ever. Pussy is just pussy.
Let’s consider apologies.
Beta [stooped shoulders, head declined]: I’m so sorry, Honey, for shouting at you. Will you ever forgive me?
Alpha [standing tall, head erect]: I feel bad about shouting at you. I’m sorry.
Do you see the difference? The alpha apologizes within his frame while the beta supplicates within the woman’s frame. The alpha is maintaining his ethics by apologizing.
[D: Enough. This is out of hand. I’ve pulled the remaining comments in the discussion.]
Sorry, I don’t see a difference with your argument and Stacey McCain. By itself, what Stacey McCain said is very true. Nothing he said can be disputed. You didn’t dispute it. It’s the issue of whether what he said aligns with your opinion of female sexual impulse. Stacey McCain was largely silent on whether women WANT to have their sexual impulses met. There is no dispute sexual temptation exists. Everyone has it.
The trickery with feminism is a mile long. Women are fooled into thinking sexual equality (the double standard) can be maintained. It can’t be. Many women don’t want commitment, yet many do and don’t know how. Again, a loose woman is not the one you marry so “If you want commitment, commit!” is irrelevant and you wouldn’t be the sucker that asks.
@TomP
I enjoy McCain’s blog, and added it to my blogroll several months ago. But while he gets parts of the issue right in the post I referenced, he is getting other parts very wrong.
I only quoted a portion of the post, but the frame was that women are going on Tinder looking for “relationships” and being tricked by bad boys into hookups. His response is, don’t complain about being tricked if you let yourself be used that way.
His premise is that women naturally want commitment, but these tricky men are outwitting them. It is untrue. These women no more want to commit than the men they are banging. What they want is to have no strings on themselves, but be able to keep the guy around after sex if they decide they want to, for as long as they want him to, and to get the status that comes with being publicly declared a girlfriend.
Pretending that this means they want “commitment” is foolish, and dangerous for all involved. It is helping these young women lie to themselves. This is conventional wisdom, but it is nonetheless flat out wrong.
Jeff was looking for a “Red Pill question for christian wives or girlfriends that claim they are anti-feminist that shows that they are in fact feministic in their thinking?”
Good questions to ask might include:
(1) “Do you watch much TV?” Listen carefully to the answer, and if she lists several shows that she “loves” check them out. The best answer would be along the lines of, “My TV broke down two years ago, and before I got around to replacing it, I realized that I was happier without it.” If she watches the news and nature documentaries or history programs, there is nothing wrong with that as long as the total number of hours she watches per week is reasonable.
(2) “Read any good books lately?”
(3) “Do you like to cook?” “Are you a Neat Freak?” (What you are looking for would be someone who is willing to work hard to serve the needs of others. Those who are steeped in feminism will often have a tit-for-tat attitude toward doing anything around the house.)
(4) “How often do you get together with your family?” (I don’t want to argue with the men who have found happiness with foreign wives, but a woman who has chosen to move a thousand miles from her family of origin may not be the prize that you think that she is.)
(5) A little later in the relationship, ask about politics, specific religious beliefs, attitude toward divorce, and definitely figure out how well she manages money and what standard of living she expects in marriage. Ask her how many children she would like to have, and whether she would want to stay home with them. If she says that she would like to stay home with them, but realizes that that might not be possible in today’s weak economy, that’s about the best non-feminist answer that you can hope for. The obvious follow-up question would be to ask what she would sacrifice in terms of house/neighborhood/private school/vacations in order to make living on one income possible. It’s very hard to be much of a feminist in real life once you have three or more children, IMO.
I’m not sure how this relates to your question, but the women I’ve known who told their best friend or their mother EVERYTHING that went on in the marriage gave me the creeps. If I had a son, I would tell him to watch out for that as well.
A book that I once read about how to find a baby to adopt urged readers to remember that although there weren’t many adoptable babies available, that they should focus instead on the fact that they were only looking for one.
Hope you find a good one!
“Many women don’t want commitment, yet many do and don’t know how. Again, a loose woman is not the one you marry so “If you want commitment, commit!” is irrelevant and you wouldn’t be the sucker that asks.”
What does that mean, that many women want commitment but “don’t know how”?
Sure they know how. It’s just that they don’t want to do it for whatever reason. They have fear of missing out, “you only live once” syndrome. Or they’re afraid to commit for other reasons. Or they’re afraid of making a wrong decision. Or they have other things they want to do.
Women do not want to commit. But you know, it’s funny — when a woman really puts her mind to it, when she really decides to “get this marriage thing done”, guess what happens? It gets done. SHE GETS MARRIED.
It’s just that most aren’t making that decision around age 22 or 23; most are putting it off to about 32 or 33 now.
The way a woman commits to a man for marriage is the same way they make a commitment to anything else — they make a decision to do what it takes to achieve the desired purpose, and then they do those things. In the case of marriage, they pick a man based on the best available information; then they make a decision to be with that man until one of them is dead.
Boxer @ 11:35 am:
“Are you fellas disgusted, as I am, to see this meme spreading through popular culture and the media?”
Not at all. Anybody who makes a suggestion like that to me either gets the misunderstanding cleared up as I present the Gospel or realizes I’m not the lightheaded fool he took me for. Either way, I get a golden invitation to talk about Christ.
Deciphering GBFM isn’t easy but I’m guessing one of his main points is that without a Theocracy (Law of Moses/Christ) or implied Theocracy as was the case for most of Christian history–be it at a National level or just a community level–all these work-arounds (game) aren’t ever going to achieve anything substantial.
Further to that, we are in a time where the enemies of Christ (all those declaring to be non-Christian) completely monopolize our media which assaults everyone 24-7 in ways that were unthinkable prior to modern technology.
There really isn’t anything to do but ride out the storm. Don’t be too angry that there aren’t anymore unicorns out there. See it as a privilege that you have to live like the apostles or the medieval monks. Besides, there’s always whores out there for your animal needs and those are minor sins in the scheme of things.
“Pretending that this means they want “commitment” is foolish, and dangerous for all involved.”
Certainly, but I presume Stacy McCain is responding to the context of the Tinder article that is in horror that hook ups apps are hooking people up…. “Online dating apps are fueling an “apocalypse” of hook-up culture, Nancy Jo Sales reports in a frightening Vanity Fair feature”
He ends his article with “Leave those trashy women alone.”
@thedeti “What does that mean, that many women want commitment but “don’t know how”? ”
It literally means women don’t how to get a man to commit. You’re certainly on the right track with your explanation. It is too late for many because they waited too long.
“It literally means women don’t how to get a man to commit.”
I’m gonna pick nits on this.
YES. THEY. DO.
Yes they do know how to get a man to commit. It’s just that they don’t want to do what it takes. It’s just that they don’t want to make the sacrifices it will take.
I know this because once they make the decision to do what it takes and make the sacrifices, voila! A marriage proposal from a suitable man!
@ deti
To get commitment, women have to lower their minimum expectations of a prospect’s SMV to no more than 1 higher than their own SMV, make themselves available in person, be feminine, and be reasonably sweet. Pretty simple.
If they want to attract higher SMV men, then they need to lose weight, grow their hair out, wear feminine clothing, make lots of sammiches, etc.
@ deti
Obviously, TomP means that “of course women don’t know how to get commitment [from men they find super attractive that other women are already after… they can’t extract commitment from men who have OPTIONS!].”
Women in general can get commitment anytime from beta orbiters or even their equals.
TomP
It literally means women don’t how to get a man THAT THEY ARE VERY ATTRACTED TO to commit.
Fixed it for you. Because like McCain, you clearly don’t understand what “hypergamy” is, and what it means to the sexual and marriage marketplaces.
To avoid 99% of life’s problems, men need only avoid one simple thing. What’s that one thing? Marriage. By getting married, men give all of their power over to women. How many more tens upon tens of millions of men’s lives have to be destroyed before the majority of men accept this one simple fact of life? Only women benefit from marriage. Marriage for men is nothing but one lifelong sacrifice.
It’s really that simple. No wife = happy life.
Why didn’t all men abandon monogamy/marriage in the ’70s? The women’s movement was about (1) the destruction of the patriarchy, (2) the sexual liberation of women and (3) freeing women from the ‘slavery’ of marriage. What stuns me is that so many men still regard monogamy/marriage as a good thing when it’s these very concepts that have been responsible for the annihilation of countless millions of men’s lives.
The global decline of marriage is a natural reflection of men gradually getting past the false illusions and enchantments of the extremely corrupt and destructive institution of marriage. As the concept of MGTOW continues to spread, the decline of marriage/commitment will only accelerate. With every woman that walks away from the concept of marriage, another man is saved from the life destruction of divorce. That’s a win/win as far as I’m concerned.
TomP,
I’ll try to set aside some time in the next few days to write a follow up post to go over this in more detail.
I mean, there are several dozen solid bros who post in the comments section here, and they have wives. What, did these guys win some wife lottery against such incredibly long odds?
I can’t speak for others, but I was unable to find a woman from this country that was ready and willing to live as a Christian wife as described in the Bible. And this even among my Christian sisters from several churches in my local. Every single one of them had been affected by our feminist culture to the point of being unwilling to conform to biblical teaching at some level, usually male headship / leadership.
Even though some had not slept around, they all had a feminist mentality (usually in the form of egalitarianism) except one, and her father would not give her permission to marry me (because I was not a virgin like she was – a decision I completely respected and still do).
Guys, the foreign market is still open, though I don’t know for how much longer.
Most of the married men here are 40 years old and above. The also married 15-20+ years prior to now when women were: less overweight and obese, more feminine, less feminism, and actually had life skills like cooking, and some still wanted to be stay at home moms and/or give up a career to raise families.
The vast majority of my experience jives with JDG.
However, I have found some occasional pockets of women that are virgins and resist feminism. Typically, they have strong father figures. Though, a bunch of them aren’t always that attractive either in terms of being overweight or obese. So it is what it is.
@JDG
I can’t speak for others, but I was unable to find a woman from this country that was ready and willing to live as a Christian wife as described in the Bible. And this even among my Christian sisters from several churches in my local. Every single one of them had been affected by our feminist culture to the point of being unwilling to conform to biblical teaching at some level, usually male headship / leadership.
Did you ask these women what they thought about submission and other issues directly or did you figure this out some other way?
I tend to be blunt and thorough. Usually just bringing up the word “submit” was enough to get the hair on the back of a woman’s neck to stand up.
“where are they?” … In Christian organizations for one, and in large college aged groups in Churches. At least that would be more likely than random chance meetings.
My husband and I met at a Christian organization on campus, we saw 11 couples find each other there and get married… 22 people found marriage. And that was just in the time that we were there (4-5 years). There had been more before us, and there were definitely more after us that I’m not adding in. Sure there were many that still didn’t find a spouse, but obviously there were a lot of us Christian girls that were serious enough, attractive at least enough, and wanted it enough to get married.
The Christian girls – most of them – were good body weights, but not all, and certainly not all were probably considered “hot.” But overall, the group itself was marriage minded… it was even joked about on campus that it was “the place” to find a spouse.
But as for the single men that for some reason, can’t find a spouse, we know a few guys that are still in that phase. One is 35 and still looking… totally rejecting game, blue pill to the core, and committed to staying celibate until marriage. He’s had 18 year olds crazy about him – some game comes natural and he still looks good, but mostly… he has single moms… with kids from different fathers! He once was really in love with a girl 10 years younger than him, but she broke up with him because he wouldn’t sleep with her – she accused him of being gay of all things. It really crushed him. Now she’s gone on and actually gotten pregnant with some alpha who knocked her up and left her I think before the baby was even born. It’s horrible.
That’s what I mean by it’s like living in a hell for single Christian men that are actually serious about their own sexual purity. I have to watch my own brother navigating it.
Another one that we know also has had a very hard time in the dating market. He’s finally just found someone (fingers crossed!), but it’s taken him years and countless rejections, and feeling like there was something wrong with him.
Ok, so just re-read what I said, “Sure there were many that still didn’t find a spouse, but obviously there were a lot of us Christian girls that were serious enough, attractive at least enough, and wanted it enough to get married.”
Compared to all the people on campus – 30,000 at that time, I guess 11 girls marriage minded is not “a lot.”
If half of the people on campus were women, then 11 / 15,000 gives you .073%. Those are better odds than previous poster Deep Strength’s .039% for the general U.S. population.
@ Dragonfly
Yep, the attractive men can easily find a spouse in a Christian college campus organization. I know of at least 5 marriages myself, but like you said it was on a campus of tens of thousands..
The difference is for the rest of the 50-80% of men who are generally unattractive at 18-21 years old they won’t find a spouse at that point in life because the women would rather be single than be with those guys. I would know as I was one of them. We didn’t know anything about masculinity at that point.
After college it just becomes troublesome because even Church ministries tend to be lacking in sheer numbers of singles. Churches of hundreds of people may only have 30-50 singles in the 18-29 age range and obviously only about half are female. Most are unattractive given the 50-60% obesity rate of 20-40 year olds. The only exception is churches with mega churches and thousands of members… which are generally popular not because they are hardline on the Scriptures and obeying Jesus but more because they are popular and bend to the culture. They pay lipservice to headship.
With regard to Boxer’s question, “What, did these guys win some wife lottery against such incredibly long odds?”
Deep Strength and Dragonfly are on the mark. Most of us with good marriages are older guys – long gone from the dating scene. My anecdotal experience is that it took me a few years to find my own “Righteous Fox” who has the attributes we talk about as being desirable. She was definitely a virgin until our wedding night, and all these years later I still get plenty of what men want: “A man wants the respect of a woman he loves, and a woman wants the love of a man she respects.” And ignorant speculation up-thread notwithstanding, the physical aspect is fine (I won’t elaborate as I’m not into over-sharing).
And to paraphrase DS and Dragonfly: if you want to catch fish, you have to cast your line where the fish are. I have two nieces who were good catches by any definition (and two who are total train wrecks). Both the good ones met their husbands in Campus Crusade for Christ. Not all the people in CCC are really suitable, but the odds are far better than in some other places. That makes sense, considering that a person in CCC is in the right age range, obesity is rare in that age group (less than 20%), and their involvement in CCC indicates a strong likelihood that they are serious about Christianity. In turn, that itself indicates a strong likelihood that they haven’t ridden the carousel, and have little-or-no internalized feminism with regard to what marriage should be (some of those girls are stridently anti-feminist).
That’s not a great answer unless one has access to a campus (Christian colleges are less trashy than secular ones, as well – although that is no guarantee of high quality by any means). The point is that there are enclaves where the treasure-to-trash ratio is better than in other places. And while even the best women are still, well, women, these girls are experts at swatting away guys who only bring parlor tricks, so a guy looking for a wife there had better bring something substantive to the table.
That’s what I mean by it’s like living in a hell for single Christian men that are actually serious about their own sexual purity. I have to watch my own brother navigating it.
Another one that we know also has had a very hard time in the dating market. He’s finally just found someone (fingers crossed!), but it’s taken him years and countless rejections, and feeling like there was something wrong with him.
To cure this ailment, ALL North American Christian single men today need to:
1. Learn at least one foreign language to the point of near-native fluency.
2. Get a passport and start traveling. Spend as much time as possible abroad.
@Deep Strength
“The difference is for the rest of the 50-80% of men who are generally unattractive at 18-21 years old they won’t find a spouse at that point in life because the women would rather be single than be with those guys.”
That raises a question for me: what should a young woman, who is also in this 50-80% range, but not attracted to guys on the same “level”, do?
I mean, I certainly think sexual attraction is an important basis for marriage (not the only thing, but it’s up there). But if 80% of women are only attracted to the hottest 20% of men… well, that seems like not enough men to go around!
You can say that the women should improve themselves to be able to attract some of those more attractive men. And that might work well for individual women, but there will still not be enough men to go around. Or you could say that women should just accept marrying someone they are not super attracted to, but that seems like a poor foundation for a marriage?
Or perhaps people could take the latter option, with a view to doing what they can to increase the “sparks” once married…
Lyn87
I have never said this. You will never find any post of mine describing my children in anyway. You only ASSUME this. And we all know what happens when we Ass-u-me.
CAF Men: Is physical attraction instant? Or can it take time to develop?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=976422
IBB,
There is no assumption in my part – you said what you said. In fact, there have been numerous discussions where you used your daughters as examples of how attractive, educated, professional, virginal women around 30 had never encountered any suitable men interested in marriage.
I was gone from the man-o-sphere for several months, but in the past you have gone into substantial detail about your daughters, and my description of your description is accurate. Since I am not going to spend the next week combing through hundreds of threads with tens of thousands of total comments spanning three years (this question will be long-forgotten by the time I found it, anyway), I will have to ask some of the other guys who were here in 2012-2014 if they remember those discussions.
You wont find anything. No one will. I have never even mentioned… ages. Nothing.
If there was a way to search inside the threads without having to go through through them one-by-one I could have such a quote within an hour or two. Since there is not… again, I have no alternative but to ask other guys if they recall those lengthy discussions. Then again, several of us are under the distinct impression that “IBB” is a husband-wife team (I have personally made posts where I quoted you switching positions back and forth and back again within the space of minutes). So if you have never given details about your daughters, rest assured that the other person who posts under the IBB name did.
Maybe you’re thinking of Tom H, Lyn87?
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/threatpoint/
Thanks gentlemen. I’ll admit that I wrongly attributed some specific details about TomH daughters to IBB’s daughters. Having said that, IBB isn’t off the hook. I found this:
In this thread from January 2014 the topic of IBB’s description of their daughters came up. Several posters commented on it, and one person – Anon71 – actually criticized IBB for over-sharing about them previously.
Edit: The link in my last post seems to be wonky. If anyone wants to search the thread and the link leads to a dead end, the January 2014 post is titled “Father Hood” and the comment by Anon71 is has a time-tamp of January 29, 2014 at 11:28 am.
I will reiterate that I take full responsibility for my mis-attribution of the specific details. For that, my apologies, IBB.
Ashley Madison bites close to home as a theologian steps down. Hehe, is anyone surprised?
Hear ye, hear ye. I hereby confer upon thee the power to forgive abortions….during the year of Jubilee.
——From the Pope to Priests worldwide.
@Boxer: what is said about Mary is utter blasphemy. Mary was a virgin, not a “single mom”, and she was indeed married to Joseph. She’s basically the opposite of a single mom.
It’s enough to turn a Protestant into a Marian Catholic for a day or two. Makes my blood boil.
Regarding chaste Christian women, well, look for this:
– Obeys the Bible (dresses modestly, covers her head, avoids even the appearance of evil, etc)
– Is a member of a church that promotes the same
– Good family history – not required but good parents with good marriage are a very very positive sign
– Her / her peer group mostly get married off between 18-21
– Spends time with high degree of accountability: short term Bible school; mission activities that are not just vacations; works in a job for a respectable business owner also in the church; etc
That is not a “righteous fox”. It does mean the chaste Christian women won’t be found near the world. And they won’t be looking for worldly men.
I was recently around 100 – 200 or so women like this. Ignored ’em, I was there for fellowship with other men (which was excellent). On the way out, I did get accosted by a lady who asked me if I’d met any of her 4 daughters yet… my answer was “no”, since I had been busy with my area of focus. One of her daughters strolled in and attempted a few minutes of smalltalk. Looked her up later, she’s 21, which means, worried about becoming a spinster.
Find places where that is happening that are compatible with your theological beliefs. If it’s not happening anywhere, change them. Your options I’m aware of are: Anabaptist (conservative Mennonite / Brethren / Charity); Reformed (OPC / some PCA / various small groups); some Baptist; some conservative holiness; some Pentecostal (UPC / PAW); traditional Catholic; some ethnic Orthodox.
innocentbystanderboston: How can the sincere, honorable, kind young man who wants to marry younger, the young man who wants to marry the beautiful, thin, young lady, succeed in even getting a date when she can have this?
True. When I was in my 20s, the majority of 20-something women around me preferred older men. One woman I dated, before she “friend-zoned” me, told me she preferred older men and so did her girlfriends. She said older men were better.
I lamented this, because I wanted to be married before 30. But I figured that at least, when I got older, I’d be more attractive to women. And as I entered my mid-to-late 30s, it did become easier to get dates. But not with anyone I cared to marry.
So many tattooed single mothers out there. Single mothers by their 30s, and sometimes their 20s. And dressed like teenagers. I knew a 42-year-old woman who wore platform shoes and sequined jeans. Women I’d be embarrassed to be seen in public with, let alone marry.
@Hank Flanders / @Lyn87:
TomH is actually still with us today. I will save him the embarrassment of revealing to you what his alter ego is.
A fellow from around these parts actually contacted him and got in contact with one of his doctor-daughters. According to him, she did the whole nice-sweet-homeschooled-girl act, along with excuses for her pictures on Facebook of “My Facebook doesn’t really give an accurate picture of me” (which had pictures of her at various bars / restaurants, with her nestled between what looked like two beta orbiters). Then she acted busy due to her medical school demands and tried to gain the upper hand in the conversation over email. After a few weeks of silence she capitulated and wanted to talk again more seriously.
He nexted, and last I heard, she’s still single. I would be quite positive IBB’s daughters would be just as much of a delight.
@Red Pill Latecomer
The smart choice is obviously to marry a godly girl from a good family who is 18 – 21. Pretty much every decent woman I know did this. (And for the love of all that is holy, do not put her on birth control!!!) A year later, she has her first kid, five years later, 3-4 kids, happy wife, happy husband.
You can occasionally find an awesome girl in her 30s who’s chaste and godly. Just hard. Most girls who don’t settle down with a man when they are young have foolish reasons they didn’t do so.
I personally don’t like younger girls, having gamed and P&D’d way too many in my worldly days, so such is my angst. And the reality is, marrying a 35-year-old just doesn’t have much to offer a man. I can’t persuade myself to do it.
I feel sorry for Xtians – like JN, feeling angst because he P and D’d ‘way too many in my younger days’ or the Theologian who joined Ashley Madison, and said that he smoked but did not inhale and thus felt the need to resign and a lot of self-inflicted internet sack-cloth and ashes flagellation. God knows, women are keen to shame any man – even men who won’t are asked ‘are you gay’ – but why do it to yourself? It takes two to tango and it is much harder for a man to say ‘no’ than for a woman to do so; so perhaps it was JN who was the victim of P and D and as for the Theologian curiosity is a normal human characteristic indeed that which made humans so successful, so if as he says he never progressed far with AM, why be so hard on himself? and why has his college suspended him?
As I often say one of the problems for Christians is that they raise the bar awfully high, and with predictable results.
… which is why I like the surely apocryphal story of the Vicar who said he approached the Ten Commandments as he would an examination with only seven out of ten to be attempted. I can only remember three of them none of which I am likely to or to want to commit – my neighbour does not live with his wife. My attitude is ‘publish and be damned’! – I realise that is easier said than done but I am beginning to like this muscular or couldn’t-give-a-damn Christianity and thus recommend it to others. I feel certain there must be Biblical authority in support.
… I also recommend the ‘I see no ships’ blind eye approach. Saves a lot of conflict. The Duke of Wellington and Admiral Lord Nelson are thus my models for future conduct.
Ahhhh Lyn!!!! “Both the good ones met their husbands in Campus Crusade for Christ.”
That’s the organization I was talking about!!!!! I didn’t want to name it since I’m sure there are others that are great as well – like Catholic ones, Baptist ones, etc. but that was ours. Awwww sweet to see you spell it out.
They called it at our campus “Campus Crusade for Couples.”
SS, “Or you could say that women should just accept marrying someone they are not super attracted to, but that seems like a poor foundation for a marriage?”
That’s what I’ve seen happen… including someone I love like my own sister, getting married to someone she was DEFINITELY NOT ATTRACTED TO. So much so… that she criticized his weight, habits, etc. while they were dating. They’re getting married this month, even though for years (as they’ve been dating) I’ve warned her of all the red flags. She shouldn’t have been trying to change him, she should have married someone that she was super attracted to her – that OFFERED HER A MARRIAGE PROPOSAL about 5 years ago, that she turned down because “timing.”
*bangs head on table*
She was so attracted to this other guy… but he “just wasn’t godly enough.” Nevermind he was actually involved in a church, has gone on to become a spiritual leader, and married someone else. In reality, since I’m very close to her, I know why she turned him down… she was afraid. She wanted to build her own life in her own city and develop her very lucrative career – she is an amazing business woman, and I’m so proud of her. She gets to go on trips, fully paid, to Europe to train people in their small business over there, but here she is, settling for someone that she’s going to “make it work” with. I hope it does work.
It is negotiated desire that I’m seeing play out right in front of me, with one of my closest and dearest friends.
“she wanted to build her own life in her own city and develop her very lucrative career – she is an amazing business woman, and I’m so proud of her. ”
Yes, yes pride for sin. Be proud of rebellion. Proud of yours, proud of others. Proud of sexual sin. Proud of homosexuality, proud of fornication, proud of adultery, proud of abortion, proud of divorce…….
Test
“She gets to go on trips, fully paid, to Europe to train people in their small business over there”
Trips to Europe full of exciting men with exciting accents. No doubt she can evangelize these men with sex. She can use the power of her “love” to save these exciting men from their ungodly ways…
Slightly younger guy here for how I found an acceptable wife.
I am 31, married at 26. So I grew up on the cusp of this current generation of online hook-ups. 3 kids, 1 on the way. Wife has been with me and supportive even through 2 job losses. Actually verbalized that she wanted me to take the lead and be in charge in our relationship. Also has an explicit expectation I will work until I succeed. Is submissive as long as I actually lead and take action. Passivity from me is the only thing that fucks it up.
I was certainly a rebel and reprobate when I first met my wife. She was a friend of my sister from the same small Catholic school. We started dating when she went to college. I should add I was NOT a good Christian by any stretch of the imagination. I had a “fuck you” attitude and drank and fought more than any kid from a good family should, and was marginally employed after finishing school. I actually straightened up and got my commission and then proposed to her after dating for a while.
So I guess to take my approach, you’d have to meet and know good people from good families when young, be a relatively rebellious and dangerous person, still have decent prospects, and then act the way you’re supposed to. So a practicing Christian would likely be screwed.
@ John Neustates
TomH is actually still with us today. I will save him the embarrassment of revealing to you what his alter ego is.
That is me. What is embarrassing about my alter ego? Am I threatening people on this blog with exposure? Am I gossiping about other men’s daughters and casting innuendos (and getting some “facts” wrong). Are you an example of “Godly Masculinity”? I don’t think that I like your brand of Xianity very much with its veiled threats, gossiping, and innuendo. You have no power over me. I see no ships.
As regards where to find unicorns: Likely you are one of those who would have upbraided Christ for being found in the company of drunkards and sinners. I met Mrs. Gamer at work, but we went out dancing at bars while we were dating. I’ve also met a few delightful women while dancing at bars. And–shock!—there are lots of sinners in the world. Only with a Blue Pill mindset would a man be surprised that some women have a lot of sex and that women are often sexual sinners. You can find a lot of self-righteous hypocrites who use threats, gossip about others, and cast innuendo in the denominations you mentioned. Pick your poison.
Thanks, Opus. You are closer to the Kingdom of God than some here. And you have a delightful way with words.
So a practicing Christian would likely be screwed.
Not true. Only an ignorant Christian who does not know what it means to be one, and who has bought into feminized Christianity, would be.
@Dave
“Only an ignorant Christian who does not know what it means to be one, and who has bought into feminized Christianity, would be.”
Ah, “no true scotsman.” What a lovely aroma it has, trotted out for the first time this thread.
So basically 95%+ of all self proclaimed Christians is what you are saying? 2 SD to either side of the mean, yep that is pretty much all.
@Dave
I’m assuming my violent, substance abusing, shit-talking, and otherwise “bad-boy” image at the time had a great deal to do with her initial attraction. I could be wrong, maybe it was just the confidence and assertiveness that came with that, but I don’t think that’s the only reason.
@Deep Strength
“The difference is for the rest of the 50-80% of men who are generally unattractive at 18-21 years old they won’t find a spouse at that point in life because the women would rather be single than be with those guys.”
@Seriously Serving
“That raises a question for me: what should a young woman, who is also in this 50-80% range, but not attracted to guys on the same “level”, do?”
I wonder if it would help “ordinary women” if they would take six months off from TV, internet & the movies? I’m not being facetious here — it really might be that visual overload of the handsome, powerful, wealthy men portrayed in the media makes it very hard for average women to be attracted to men who are “in their league.”
I wonder if it would help “ordinary women” if they would take six months off from TV, internet & the movies? I’m not being facetious here — it really might be that visual overload of the handsome, powerful, wealthy men portrayed in the media makes it very hard for average women to be attracted to men who are “in their league.”
I’m reading the book Dataclysm, written by one of the founders of OKCupid. While he’s clearly a blue pill kind of a guy, he’s also data driven so he lets truths out from time to time; the 80/20 rule is clearly displayed in a graphical form, for example. Hypergamy is clearly on display, for those who know what to look for, and who are not afraid to look straight at it.
Social media in particular are surely having an effect upon women in a lot of ways. The various dating and mating sites such as OKCupid create an artificial world in which any woman under 40 is fed the illusion of unlimited men “out there”. That said, I know of two women who met men that they married via such a site, I’m pretty sure it takes a degree of discipline to do so. Not high IQ, discipline. Not niceness, discipline. The women who make those sites work for marriage must surely be very intentional about their search.
The average woman under 30 swims in a sea of men, she’s constantly receiving men’s attention, and social media such as Tinder amps that up a whole lot. Given the little bips of dopamine that must go along with the experience, it’s not all that far fetched to look at social media as akin to a drug.
Video, as has been pointed out before, is a form of hypnotic experience. That’s another can of worms.
So, Original Laura, you have a very good point. I doubt there are many people who are willing to give up TV in any form, or even dial back on their use of social media, and of those who can, more will be men IMO than women.
@ seriouslyserving
1. Work on their attractiveness. The obvious: sleep, workout, nutrition, flattering and feminine clothes like skirts and dresses, long hair, skin care, light and fresh makeup if any, no tattoos, etc. Women need to be mindful and understand that men like young, beautiful, virgin women. There are few exceptions.
2. Work on becoming more godly. The obvious: kindness, generosity, graciousness, fruits of the Spirit, dependent on God for most needs. Most men won’t appreciate a woman who is super emotionally clingy and dumps her problems on him if many can be resolved by herself. How a woman treats those closest to her and the least of these is a good indicator.
3. Work on skills that would complement their dream man: cooking, homemaker skills if she wants to be a stay at home mom, good at massages, or whatever else. Hobbies if she wants to find someone in a particular area.
4. Look for men that have strong potential. The old Russian maxim being if you want to be married to a general then marry the lieutenant. Specifically, men who show flashes of ambition and leadership qualities but may not have fully stepped into his own yet. These men typically won’t be snatched up by anyone yet as most women will be going after the few men with the whole package. Look for men who have written down goals and are working to achieve them.
If women are looking for the top 20% of men, then they’re going to be competing with all of the women who are likely more attractive and have good personalities too. Women need to be taught good discernment for what qualities of men they can see that have potential to grow into a strong, bold, confident leaders. Then they need to be taught to follow his lead, and be his biggest supporter and fan. That is the way women help foster a strong confident man.
5. I do not suggest women marry men they are not attracted to nor men do that for women. That’s recipe for failure. However, women’s attraction is a bit more fluid and tends to increase as a man becomes a stronger and more confident leader. Thus, finding a man with potential will generally be the best.
Frankly, there’s not enough attractive Christian men or women to go around so trying to fix the whole problem is useless. Do what you can with the few people that you mentor.
6. Then what I said earlier: Vet him according to godliness first. Then when she finds a man that has potential or is a strong masculine leader she should be respectful, encouraging, and enthusiastic to him. She should be willing to commit and submit to him. Follow his lead.
That is me. What is embarrassing about my alter ego? Am I threatening people on this blog with exposure? Am I gossiping about other men’s daughters and casting innuendos (and getting some “facts” wrong).
So, in one persona you have teenage daughters, and in the other you have 30-ish daughters? Or did I read those previous comments wrong?
That raises a question for me: what should a young woman, who is also in this 50-80% range, but not attracted to guys on the same “level”, do?
I mean, I certainly think sexual attraction is an important basis for marriage (not the only thing, but it’s up there). But if 80% of women are only attracted to the hottest 20% of men… well, that seems like not enough men to go around!
You can say that the women should improve themselves to be able to attract some of those more attractive men. And that might work well for individual women, but there will still not be enough men to go around. Or you could say that women should just accept marrying someone they are not super attracted to, but that seems like a poor foundation for a marriage?
Or perhaps people could take the latter option, with a view to doing what they can to increase the “sparks” once married…
If a person finds themselves unattractive to the people they are seeking to attract, they can either become more attractive, settle, or abstain. This is true for both men and women alike. Historically (and even currently) we have had a lot of marriages that involved settling, because of the problem you raise — there will always be a shortage of men in the top 20%, relative to the women who want them, because only 20% of men are in the top 20%. In 2015, settling is very dangerous, because strong, maintained sexual attraction is the cornerstone of 2015 marriage due to the fact that the legal/cultural/social supports for sustaining a “so so” marriage are no longer there — so settling runs a significant failure risk.
On the margins, I think we will see an increase of sitting it out, but still quite a few people settling because they prefer that to sitting out, at least initially. Whether or not the settling marriages fail really depends on a number of factors, some of them personal and some of them socio-economic class related.
It’s what happens when sexual attraction and hotness becomes elevated to the level of importance that it has today, coupled with the model of marriage being “hedonic marriage”. It leads to a small number of people having hot-as-fire marriages, and a lot of other people being in precarious ones.
She should do what her grandmother, great-grandmother, etc. did. Find a dude with potential, and make something out of him.
A skillful and astute woman can make a man much more successful than he otherwise would be, and success = attractiveness. Such women don’t need to nag or whine to get this done, either. A submissive, feminine woman will just suggest little things and the dude runs with it.
Boxer
@Dave
I’m assuming my violent, substance abusing, shit-talking, and otherwise “bad-boy” image at the time had a great deal to do with her initial attraction. I could be wrong, maybe it was just the confidence and assertiveness that came with that, but I don’t think that’s the only reason.
Of course, your confidence and assertiveness played a major role in creating an initial attraction in her for you. However, your violence and other bad boy ways did not. You would still have easily attracted her if you were nice, confident, and assertive. She was attracted to you in spite of your bad boy ways, not because of them.
My original point was to let the readers understand that the Christian faith does not take away a man’s assertiveness or confidence; feminized Christianity does that. I have been a Christian for 35 years and I move among friends who have been Christians for similar length of time. None of us is pussy-whipped. Feminized Christianity is a phenomenon of the West, not of the whole world. Take a trip to South Africa, or to virtually anywhere in Africa, the Caribbean and the South Americas. And while you are at it, get to much of Asia. Feminized Christianity is almost unknown most of those places.
I can make claim that Jesus Christ was the original “Rebel with a cause”. He rebelled against the religious setup of His day, and had a type of confidence and assertiveness that bordered on arrogance, and He taught His disciples to be similarly confident. As a matter of fact, a distinguishing characteristic of His followers was their boldness, such that “when they [the persecutors] saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. Acts 4:13 (KJV). Those who think that true Christianity creates wussies are the same types of people who think Jesus is some fragile, effeminate-looking guy with long, flowing hair. They don’t know jack about Christ or Christianity.
Yeah, go ahead, call this a “true Scotsman argument”. I have scriptures to back me up.
Once again, the biggest problem facing women seeking marriage today is that their expectations vastly depart from reality. Everything else is ancillary to this. The issue will only accelerate as men continue to adjust their “supply” of courtship (and male investment) downwards massively in the coming years.
Already there has been a substantial drop-off in male investment among younger men, but this has been masked somewhat as women have continued to delay marriage further in pursuit of casual relationships. Last time women checked the fridge there was a 24 pack of beer. But when they finally get around to checking it again, panic will ensue as they realize they are fighting over 6-pack.
Panic from young women like Heather can be explained in part by the fact that she has just opened the fridge. Much to her dismay, no one will be re-stocking it anytime soon.
@Dave
You mean scriptures like this.
MAT 7:21
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Tell me more about cuckstianity.
That raises a question for me: what should a young woman, who is also in this 50-80% range, but not attracted to guys on the same “level”, do?
She needs to get into the Word and renew her mind, so that she can think more rationally, and have a clearer understanding of her prospects.
“For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every [wo]man that is among you, not to think of [herself] more highly than [s]he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every [wo]man the measure of faith.” Rom 12:3 (KJV)
Once again, the biggest problem facing women seeking marriage today is that their expectations vastly depart from reality.
Among professed Christian women, the biggest problem facing them is the proliferation of false teachers. If those preaching the Gospel were preaching the unadulterated Word, the women listening to them would be thinking more rationally.
In other words, women hate long term monogamy, and prefer serial (short term) monogamy.
Pingback: Maximizing the chances of Christian women to find a spouse | Christianity and the manosphere
You would still have easily attracted her if you were nice, confident, and assertive. She was attracted to you in spite of your bad boy ways, not because of them.
Dave is desperately trying to “circle the square” here, as many Christian white-knight types do when explaining the dearth of young women swarming towards “nice, confident, and assertive” men.
This may come as thunderclap revelation to you, but women are not naturally attracted to such types, and will only seek them with the strong guidance of her (hopefully intact) family and community. The head scratching will continue until you take the red pill and see female nature for what it truly is – not pretty.
Among professed Christian women, the biggest problem facing them is the proliferation of false teachers. If those preaching the Gospel were preaching the unadulterated Word, the women listening to them would be thinking more rationally.
Dave if you believe women are being “mislead” by the proliferation of false teachers, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying.
This may come as thunderclap revelation to you, but women are not naturally attracted to such types, and will only seek them with the strong guidance of her (hopefully intact) family and community. The head scratching will continue until you take the red pill and see female nature for what it truly is – not pretty.
Don’t get ahead of yourself, dude. I am not interested in attracting the types of women you just described. Quite frankly, I don’t have problems attracting the type of women I really want to attract.
“Quite frankly, I don’t have problems attracting the type of women I really want to attract.”
You are the only man in the room Dave. Do you and Marc Driscoll trade shaming tips?
Keep going Dave. You are becoming the straw man that this blog needs but not the one that it deserves.
Entropy,
What is your problem? What exactly are you trying to insinuate? Maybe you should get more specific so I can answer you better.
I hope you don’t have a problem with the fact that I am not interested in attracting the tattooed up women with nose rings and multiple ONS? I know what works for me, so you can keep all those women to yourself.
On this blog men talk about problems they face in the current MMP, the paradigm that those in the US and to a lesser extent all western countries are subject to. We also talk about ways to ameliorate the problem, or make do or get around it. You barged in and loudly proclaimed, “There is no problem!, All of you are just slack jawed faggots, I am the only real man here.”
Your actions are akin to walking into a Soviet Gulag and telling everyone they are lazy, and that hard work would give them satisfaction.
Don’t get ahead of yourself, dude. I am not interested in attracting the types of women you just described. Quite frankly, I don’t have problems attracting the type of women I really want to attract.
“Woosh” goes the sound of my point sailing right over your head.
Dave & PuffyJacket,
At the risk of suggesting a middle ground… I think we can all agree that women in general are attracted to strong, confident men. Whether they gravitate toward strong, confident jerk-boys or toward strong, confident righteous men will be greatly influenced by two things: guidance from their parents (particularly their fathers), and the availability of each type in her social circle. There may be other factors, but those are the two that occurred to me off the top of my head. For now, I’m sure we can agree that the observation that girls with “daddy issues” more often end up with the former type of men is not without merit. Fathers matter.
That’s a big reason why girls raised by single mothers do so poorly compared to girls who grow up in two-parent households with strong, Godly fathers: they need to see how Dad acts, and how he treats Mom, and the father can screen her suitors because he has a much better idea of what to look for than she does. Frankly, Urban II’s wife lucked out – she married a bad-boy who got his act together. I assume Urban II would not object to that characterization.
———-// BREAK //———-
@ Pokesalad,
The mistake was mine – I was responding to a point that someone made about IBB, and I mis-attributed something Tom H said about his daughters to IBB. IBB rightly challenged that detail, and both JN and TFH discovered my error before I did. When they pointed it out I immediately admitted my error (a rare thing around here indeed, considering some of the wild projection that has taken place). JN then noted that Tom H was still with us (but had switched usernames) and declined to name him. At 8:39 Thedsgamer admitted that it was he who used to write under the username Tom H. Nobody is claiming to be two people or have two sets of daughters. It was, as I said, a straightforward mis-attribution error on my part. The mistake was mine and mine alone: quickly discovered and immediately rectified.
Women are sold a bill of goods with vastly overstated benefits and no obligations. And then one wonders why women fall for it again and again. Women will be deceived, it’s in their nature. This also means that women will gravitate towards false teachers simply because they like what is said and prefer to be deceived. When the truth is spoken to them, they will shame, scream, pull back and run.
Thank you. It’s amazing what the responsibility of a submissive women and family will do to a man. In the end, women can either choose their men wisely and then place all their effort into helping that man succeed and giving him confidence or they can bitch, moan, whine and try to get the top couple percentage points of men who are naturally confident due to status and good looks.
@ Entropy:
“cuckstianity.”
Thread winner.
@Lyn87,
I have no objections. I would call myself a fool who saw he was in sin, largely through the influence of my now-wife and my father. She was patient and good, he called me on bullshit.
@Dave,
I honestly don’t know, so you could be correct. But if I had to put money on it, I’d not bet on your guess. Seen too many young women of today.
Even if you are a successful unicorn hunter, Dave, you speak from the position of ‘ought’ as opposed to ‘is’. That’s all.
Seems like hypergamy works like an allergic reaction.
When exposed to mass media the hypergamy system because hyper sensitive, causing the body to attack normally healthy material. And like someone living with lots of food allergies they have to act super picky and can only focus on 10% of food.
Once you develop an allergy you have it forever. You can only go through long sessions of shots and exposure therapy, and then a lifetime of maintenance to treat it.
Allergies are mainly a 1st world problem. The majority of human history we adapted our immune system to the presence of parasites in our natural state, now parasites can be used to treat allergies by suppressing the immune system. Maybe dread (which includes a development of humility in the face of survival against a larger reality), is the natural treatment to calm hypergamy.
Maybe churches should have “scared straight” reality checks for girls. But of course, much like a life saving injection it involves some pain and so we will fought against by children.
“In 2015, settling is very dangerous, because strong, maintained sexual attraction is the cornerstone of 2015 marriage due to the fact that the legal/cultural/social supports for sustaining a “so so” marriage are no longer there — so settling runs a significant failure risk. ”
It is much easier for a woman to present as sexually attractive and to maintain one man’s sexual attraction to her; than it is for a man to present as sexually attractive and to maintain one woman’s sexual attraction to him. MUCH, MUCH easier for a woman to do this than for a man.
In other words, it’s easier for a woman to take care of the sexual attractiveness part of a relationship than for a man; because it’s just much easier for a woman to present as sexually attractive. Most men are sexually attracted to most women; whereas most women are sexually attracted to only a small number of men.
________________
There’s a difference in how sexual attraction and sexual “settling” works for men and women that makes it more difficult for men, too.
For men, sex is “want” or “don’t want”. A man will never, ever commit to a woman he doesn’t want sex with.
For women, sex is “want”, “willing” or “don’t want”. There’s about 20% of men she’s sexually attracted to and “wants” sex with.
There’s probably about 30% of men she’d be “willing” to have sex with, IF the man brings “other things”, most notably provisioning and commitment. This is why you see women having sex rapidly with the attractive men while requiring nothing in return. It’s also why you see women making the lesser men wait, while those lesser men “prove” their bona fides with provisioning in the form of spending money. To this group of men, she’s “willing”, but IF AND ONLY IF he is FIRST forthcoming and going through the motions of provisioning. So after she’s satisfied he’s able and willing to spend some (beta) bucks and some time, she MIGHT be willing to have sex with him. These are the “beta bux” guys.
Then the remaining 50% are “Don’t want”. These are the men she’ll never have sex with under any circumstances.
Most of the settling marriages happen in that 30% and reaching down into that remaining 50% of “don’t want”. These are the marriages that get into trouble, because the provisioning isn’t attraction, and because the women can do that themselves or extract it from the ex husband especially after having his kid(s).
When you go through it the way Dalrock and his commenters do, it’s very easy to see how the entire SMP has been completely restructured to make it much, much easier for women to pursue their preferred sexual strategies of AFBB and serial monogamy; and made it easier for the most attractive 20% of men to have sex with those women.
It’s also easy to see that this has been entirely by design, and is no accident — particularly when you have Christian women following the exact same sexual strategies as nonChristian women while pastors and priests wink, nod and look the other way; and when you have the Sheryl Sandbergs of the world proclaiming their strategy from the rooftops.
@Lyn
We may be in part agreement (that upbringing plays a major role), but there’s more to it. The factory default setting in women is to be attracted to immoral men. Women are not just naturally attracted to strong, confident men. They do also tend to be attracted to immoral men, which is strongly evident in their innate preference for CADs and serial adulterers (or worse). This is human nature.
Women in the SMP have spoken loudly, and they prefer immoral men. This may be a Christian man’s cross to bear, but its still an undeniable truth. The problem with white-knight types is they insist that women are not naturally immoral, and that the real problem lies with nice guys who refuse to become more “confident” like their immoral counterparts who are doing all the scoring. This is just a softer form of “weak men are screwing up feminism” frequently peddled by those who are too afraid (or stupid) to address the root cause.
Pingback: Broken Premisses | Dalrock
@Deti
“it’s also easy to see that this has been entirely by design, and is no accident — ”
I agree. the truth is that it is by design. Who designed it? No one with my best interests.
Who goes along with it? No one with my best interests.
Anyone who supports the system is my enemy.
Puffy:
I disagree that the factory setting is for immoral men.
The factory setting is for strong, confident, assertive, dominant men.
In a society drenched in the feminine imperative, the men who are strong, confident, assertive and dominant ALSO happen to be the men who are immoral rules breakers. Most men have had those qualities socialized out of them, because they’ve been told it’s immoral, unchristian and against the rules to be strong, confident, assertive and dominant.
The church wants men to be CUCKS. The church votes Cuckservative. The church preaches Cuckstianity.
Mark Driscoll says Joseph was a cuck. Why don’t you want to be a cuck? Save time and be pre-cucked with single moms. Better yet be pre-cucked by multiple men, mulitple cuck trophies from just one single mom.
Cucktastic.
Women aren’t innately immoral either. They’re innately fallen and sinful.
But they will follow and take the shape of the confident, dominant, assertive and strong men around them.
If the confident dominant strong and assertive men are Christians, that’s what women will follow and be.
If the confident dominant strong and assertive men are Muslims, that’s what women will follow and be.
If such men are neoNazi skinheads, that’s what women will follow and be.
If, as in this society, such men are thugs, criminals, douchebags and dickbags, that’s what women will follow and be. And that’s what they are. And it’s what they do.
And have sex with. And make babies with. And lament that they aren’t “good men” (who stayed with them).
In a society drenched in the feminine imperative, the men who are strong, confident, assertive and dominant ALSO happen to be the men who are immoral rules breakers.
Now why is that Deti? Allow me to connect the dots for you. In a FI drenched society, women get to call the shots. When women call the shots, they overwhelming choose immoral rule breakers over the nice guy.
This is why a society drenched in FI (such as ours), inevitably drifts back towards lawlessness, tyranny and grasshuts.
@thedeti:
Yup. That’s a great one to the dictionary.
“This is why a society drenched in FI (such as ours), inevitably drifts back towards lawlessness, tyranny and grasshuts.”
Back to roots. Back to basics. Back to the Beginning. When the sacred blue lights, and the siren song of protection called forth from the ritualistic braying into the phone no longer brings the jackbooted enforcers of HER will, there will be justice. When the arrant squeals of protest that fly from the mouth of status whores at meat markets fails to bring white knight manginas, hungry to dish out violence in service to HER will, there will be justice. When illegitimate children club each other to death with broken pavement on streets clotted with the dark skabs of dry blood and woman moan for a time when their sacred feelings were enforced through magic boxes that continually told them how beautiful they were, then there will be justice. When men who would sell their brothers out for a petulant lick at a woman’s boot are drawn and quartered, their fowl essence no longer to be upon the earth, there will be justice.
When we who have the glasses, who see the matrix, who know the truth, when we crush every skull and sever every hand raised towards goddess worship, there will be justice. And not before.
@PuffyJacket:
Historically, to keep the society somewhat moral, the moral Men had to kill the immoral Men. Women being Women have an amazing abilty to fall in line when the immoral Men are quite dead. There’s always the outlier Woman that’ll take her immorality to her death, but few Women are “true believers” in much of anything beyond their own survival.
@Looking Glass
It has more do with incentives, actually. Prior to the SR, women who chose immoral men had to bear nearly 100% of the consequences of that choice. No child support, no state apparatus to find the guy and throw him in jail if he fails to comply, no alimony if she walks, no abortion if she changes her mind later, etc. When women were required to bear completely the costs of their own decisions, they chose men quite differently in fact. This is polar opposite to what he have now.
Looking glass:
I think we’ve found a replacement for “Churchians” and “churchianity”.
Cuckstians and Cuckstianity.
AFBC.
Alpha F*cks; Beta Cucks.
I know someone’s thought of that before I did.
She wanted to build her own life in her own city and develop her very lucrative career – she is an amazing business woman, and I’m so proud of her.
And the only man who would care about that is one who wants to be her business partner, NOT one who wants to be her lover.
AFBC.
Alpha F*cks; Beta Cucks.
I know someone’s thought of that before I did.
That really should completely replace AF/BB. It’s much more accurate.
Dear Freeriker:
The natural type who would be sexually attracted to an “amazing business woman” would be a butch dyke, who seeks out a provider able to afford expensive rims for her Harley Davidson. Such things are pretty much irrelevant to a man, and would probably be more of a hindrance to male attraction than any sort of asset.
Boxer
@Dave: “Of course, your confidence and assertiveness played a major role in creating an initial attraction in her for you. However, your violence and other bad boy ways did not. You would still have easily attracted her if you were nice, confident, and assertive. She was attracted to you in spite of your bad boy ways, not because of them.”
Good God Dave, you singlehandedly prove the whole Matrix thing. Unplug bro. Only a few more cables left to rip out and it will only hurt for a little while. I promise.
@Deti: “Women aren’t innately immoral either. They’re innately fallen and sinful.”
I have spent 15 podcasts talking about whether a woman’s soul was created below and have not run out of material. I haven’t even touched it. Women are precisely as immoral as the strongest men around her want them to be. That is one of the meanings of the aphorism they take the shape of their container. In our society, the strong men are the playa’s not the “nice guys” and they want them to be sluts. Let me check. Yep, most women these days are sluts. Who knew?
In our society, the strong men are the playa’s not the “nice guys” and they want them to be sluts. Let me check. Yep, most women these days are sluts. Who knew?
Close, but no cigar.
You are inadvertently buying into the white-knight frame here. Women are not acting this way because of the “bad evil menz” who want them to be sluts. Quite the opposite, actually. This is the near 100%-certain outcome of hypergamy unleashed; a path that leads us in only one direction.
It should be also noted that if one agrees with both of the following premises:
a) that women are firmly in control of the SMP today (which they are)
b) that sexually immoral men are monopolizing the supply of women (which they are)
Then the conclusion as to whether women are naturally inclined towards immoral men is 100% clear. I am shocked at the number of “red-pillers” who are getting tripped up by this.
AFBC.
Gold. That’s Rollo’s “Open Hypergamy” in a very easy to understand form. And it’s the next step beyond Sheryl Sandberg’s AF-BB
Bonecrcker’s rule # 94 (spelling is right) : Evil, not power, is the defining attribute of women’s attraction toward deviant men. What a woman wants from a man isn’t for him to be powerful, but evil.
Dave, you’re going off the deep end today.
Dave @ 11:18 am:
“I can make claim that Jesus Christ was the original “Rebel with a cause”. He rebelled against the religious setup of His day, and had a type of confidence and assertiveness that bordered on arrogance, and He taught His disciples to be similarly confident.”
Christ was repulsive, not attractive. Isaiah 53:2-3. He also obeyed the laws of his time; remember how hard the Pharisees worked to trip him up?
Look at the women who were closest to Christ. Mary Magdalene, who followed only after Christ did a major exorcism for her… Mary and Martha, and Martha once argued that dishwashing was more important than enjoying the Master’s presence… and… Christ’s mother.
Move over, Donald Trump.
…
Dave @ 11:37 am:
“That raises a question for me: what should a young woman, who is also in this 50-80% range, but not attracted to guys on the same “level”, do?
She needs to get into the Word and renew her mind, so that she can think more rationally, and have a clearer understanding of her prospects.”
She needs to ditch her slutphone and learn to express kindness and respect towards all men. Only Churchians believe “more Bible study” is the answer to any kind of prayer.
…
Dave @ 11:44 am:
“If those preaching the Gospel were preaching the unadulterated Word, the women listening to them would be thinking more rationally.”
It’s always the man’s fault, eh?
Women want a rule-breaker, not necessarily evil. They want a special dispensation of rules for them only, enforced by their apex status male. This, while the rest of the beta males fall into line, with “other women” (you’re such a nice guy, there must be some for you!!!)
There is a limit to how dominant a rule-following man can be. There is no limit to how dominant a rule-breaking (or rule-making man: think warlord/gangster type) can be. Civilization and the rule of law has, in a way, become a giant shit-testing pre-filtering device that lets women know who is a good rule-follower, and who is an independent trailblazing lawbreaker.
Some women will gravitate to the wall street financial lawbreaker, some will go for the biker thug, some will go for the womanizer. All these men show that they are a law unto themselves, and being a law unto oneself is as old as the Garden of Eden.
Perhaps women gravitate to these men because a lawless man, being a law unto himself, is in a position of ruling over her fully. A man who subordinates himself to the state (rule of law), to the church (rule by priest), or any other law is (in her eyes), a weak and subordinate man.
This actually makes perfect sense, because a woman who has not fully submitted herself to God is looking for what? A God. And a man who is a law unto himself is the closest thing she can find.
When a woman fully recognized the Lord for who he is, fully submits herself to God, and places her trust in God as her ultimate source of strength, she can then allow herself the “vulnerability” to commit to a man who has placed himself under authority to the government or to the Church or God.
I believe there is an extremely close correlation between a woman’s true submission to God and her ability to be attracted to a Godly man. The argument over causation, I leave to the guys here to determine.
@Gunner
Sorry, you’re the one who went far into the deep end.
Christ was repulsive, not attractive. Isaiah 53:2-3.
Was He? You quoted a passage dealing with His crucifixion—something that lasted a mere hours—and used that to represent His 33.5 years on earth? That is genius.
She needs to ditch her slutphone and learn to express kindness and respect towards all men. Only Churchians believe “more Bible study” is the answer to any kind of prayer.
Emphasis mine. Looks like you did not realize that the real source of the learning you mentioned above is through “Bible studies”. Or where else does a woman learn to express kindness and respect all men? Classroom? At the office?
Dave @ 11:44 am:
“If those preaching the Gospel were preaching the unadulterated Word, the women listening to them would be thinking more rationally.”
It’s always the man’s fault, eh?
That projection is entirely yours; you can re-interpret what I wrote to suit your preconceived ideas.
Look at the women who were closest to Christ. Mary Magdalene, who followed only after Christ did a major exorcism for her… Mary and Martha, and Martha once argued that dishwashing was more important than enjoying the Master’s presence… and… Christ’s mother.
So you are insinuating that Jesus was so beta He could not attract women to Himself? Really? Were you not the same person who claimed that Satan scammed God?
Seriously, Gunner, you need to get off Dalrock’s website, and bury your face in the Word. You are embarrassing yourself.
“Bonecrcker’s rule # 94 (spelling is right) : Evil, not power, is the defining attribute of some women’s attraction toward deviant men. What some women want from a man isn’t for him to be powerful, but evil.”.
There, FIFY.
It is tiring to constantly read about how ALL women are bad, while it is implied that men are good. What makes that idea different from feminism, only with the genders reversed?
There are good men out there and there are bad men. There are also good women and there are bad women. Some men are attracted to the skanky, tattooed sluts; some men are not. Some women are attracted to really evil men; some women are not. It is parochial to assume otherwise.
There are also good women and there are bad women.
Blue Pill. There are only sinful, fallen women. Some have indulged sexual sin more than others, granted. All are capable of it.
thedeti
For women, sex is “want”, “willing” or “don’t want”. There’s about 20% of men she’s sexually attracted to and “wants” sex with.
There’s probably about 30% of men she’d be “willing” to have sex with, IF the man brings “other things”, most notably provisioning and commitment. This is why you see women having sex rapidly with the attractive men while requiring nothing in return. It’s also why you see women making the lesser men wait, while those lesser men “prove” their bona fides with provisioning in the form of spending money. To this group of men, she’s “willing”, but IF AND ONLY IF he is FIRST forthcoming and going through the motions of provisioning. So after she’s satisfied he’s able and willing to spend some (beta) bucks and some time, she MIGHT be willing to have sex with him. These are the “beta bux” guys.
Then the remaining 50% are “Don’t want”. These are the men she’ll never have sex with under any circumstances.
Most of the settling marriages happen in that 30% and reaching down into that remaining 50% of “don’t want”. These are the marriages that get into trouble, because the provisioning isn’t attraction, and because the women can do that themselves or extract it from the ex husband especially after having his kid(s).
Surely, there are other factors at work besides just sexual attraction in determining whether a marriage succeeds or fails, wouldn’t you say, though, Deti? Reportedly, Tom Brady and Gisele Bundchen could be headed for divorce, and Tom Brady is about as Alpha as one can get in the West. He’s good looking, rich, famous, and athletic, and is even at the top of his field in professional sports, so what straight woman wouldn’t be sexually attracted to him?
Anyway, regardless of whether Tom and Gisele’s marriage lasts, we see other celebrity marriages fizzle out all the time. In fact, that seems to be the norm for them, and since celebrities tend to be rich, famous, and good looking, meaning sexual attraction should by all appearances be there, there seem to be other factors besides raw sexual attraction at play in determining whether the marriage lasts.
As I’ve probably said elsewhere, the characters of the people in the marriage are going to be huge factors in determining whether the marriage lasts, because I’d say most, if not all, marriages eventually face some amount of disillusionment. I’d also say celebrity marriages don’t last, because celebrities are simply going to have a hard time not being self-centered, self-absorbed, and entitled with so many people adoring them on a constant basis, so they are going to have a hard time truly loving another person and hanging in there when things get difficult. Contrast the marriages among the rich, famous, and good looking with those of people who are average looking or below and have ordinary jobs and lives.
Sure, plenty of marriages among ordinary people end in divorce, too, but some of them also last, and I can’t attribute those marriages lasting to just sexual attraction. I can’t attribute celebrities’ marriages falling apart, due to lack of sexual attraction. I attribute them to the characters of the people involved, but I don’t deny that sexual attraction is important. I just don’t think it’s everything, do you?
I know this was in response to Gunner Q, but do you really think Jesus was beautiful, attractive, and majestic by earthly standards except when he was being crucified? That’s what you get from “For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, and as a root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness, and when we see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him.”
So you think Jesus grew up comely, but He suddenly wasn’t comely anymore the moment He was crucified and that that moment alone was what this scripture was referring to?
I think this article makes a good case for Jesus being average looking for his time, culture, and people, particularly the part about Judas having to indicate to the soldiers who Jesus was. among His disciples.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a234/1282186/
*Dave
Was He? You quoted a passage dealing with His crucifixion—something that lasted a mere hours—and used that to represent His 33.5 years on earth? That is genius.
deti-
The want, willing, and don’t want reminds me of Roissy’s post on the marry/fuck game.
Women want to fuck 20% of the men, willing to marry the next 30%, and they would gladly destroy the lower 50% of men. Women invented eugenics. The nazis were nothing compared to the hypergamy of the average college slut.. Haha.
Lolzlzlzolzolzol
And hey – good to see you are commenting again.
There are also good women and there are bad women.
Blue Pill. There are only sinful, fallen women. Some have indulged sexual sin more than others, granted. All are capable of it.
Going by that logic then this is true too:
“Blue Pill. There are only sinful, fallen men. Some have indulged sexual sin more than others, granted. All are capable of it”
If you don’t agree then it is obvious you are a feminist in reverse.
I’m a feminist in reverse. The fallen male behavior is a defective man. You are comparing a defective man to a normal woman and saying equal. You have spent all of this time here and have learned nothing.
For the avoidance of doubt I believe that we were all born sinners–men and women. But there is redemption in Christ. Those who have obtained salvation in Christ are no longer sinners, but Children of God, and righteous in God, and holy before God.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (KJV)
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.
There seems to be an unhealthy obsession with sex in this forum, in that women who have ever engaged in sexual activities prior to their conversion to Christ a considered damaged goods—something that has no basis in Scripture or in common sense.
Granted that, when a woman commits fornication, she sins against at least six entities:
She sins against God;
She sins against her body;
She sins against the Church;
She sins against society;
She sins against her future children;
and she sins against her future husband.
When she repents however,
She receives forgiveness from God (this is a given);
She receives forgiveness from herself/she forgives herself;
She receives forgiveness from society (may not even be necessary, as society is worse);
She receives forgiveness from the church (this is almost certain);
She will receive forgiveness from her future children (this is conceivable; kids will forgive mom).
Guess who refuses to forgive her? The future husband!
He sits there alone, like the elder brother of the prodigal son, all self-righteous and full of pride and arrogance, touting how “women are different to men when it comes to sex”, and all kinds of biases that have no basis in God’s word. He repeats his Pharisaic ideas so often that they become Gospel to him. Yet, he is standing on sinking ground, because God has not made sexual sin an unpardonable offense, no matter how much some guys here try to make it.
Yeah, go ahead; call me blue pill. or Delta David. I welcome your labels with open hands, but I am not moved an inch by them.
I’m a feminist in reverse. The fallen male behavior is a defective man. You are comparing a defective man to a normal woman and saying equal. You have spent all of this time here and have learned nothing.
Well, I have news for you: there is such a thing as a saved, redeemed woman. She has renounced sin and has come to God, and she has received a new heart, and she is living a holy life everyday of her life.
When a sinner comes to Christ–man or woman—they receive exact same thing: salvation in Christ, and a transformed life.
God does not have a separate experience for men vs women.
For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28
Anything you wrote contrary to God’s word is your personal opinion, which does not count in the grand scheme of things.
Partially correct. It is the female of the species that determines the behavior of the males that wish to mate.
The other part is this: it is the male of the species that determines the behavior of the females that wish to have commitment.
I’ve never encountered any pastor who teaches such a thing as your “Tingle Gospel”. I’m not a church shopper so perhaps my experience in this matter is not as wide as yours. Please give examples of “even sincere pastors” claiming “a mans character is measured by a woman’s sexual attraction to him”. Every pastor I’ve met would scoff at such folly.
@Hank Flanders
I think you have answered this question:
So you think Jesus grew up comely, but He suddenly wasn’t comely anymore the moment He was crucified and that that moment alone was what this scripture was referring to?
With this statement:
I think this article makes a good case for Jesus being average looking for his time, culture, and people, particularly the part about Judas having to indicate to the soldiers who Jesus was. among His disciples.
The passage quoted dealt exclusively about the crucifixion of Christ. His face was so bloody and his body marred and his soul crushed that most of those that saw him looked away. The sun went into an eclipse for three hours. Even God could not bear to look on him for the first time throughout eternity, prompting Christ to ask “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
Jesus was carrying the sins of the world at this time, and his soul was being made “an offering for sin”. Of course his appearance was not the best. Here is the whole passage:
Isaiah 53
1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
As per Christ’s appearance as a man, He was most likely a typical carpenter in those days—-strong, rugged, with calloused hands and toned muscles. We could easily deduce this from the fact that he looked just like a typical man of his day, neither too tall nor too short, otherwise the Scripture would have given us any unusual descriptions. Moreover, as you pointed out, he did not stand out among other men of similar occupation.
Additional passages dealing with Christ’s death:
Isa 52:13-14 (KJV)
13 Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.
14 As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:
And His transformation after death:
12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; 13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. 14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; 15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
Rev 1:12-15 (KJV)
@Dragonfly,
Does your sister openly acknowledge to you that she is not attracted to this guy?
I hope that they both put a lot of effort into building a great marriage, and that desire grows there.
@T O Laura,
I think time away from media is a great, practical idea! Although, I do wonder if six months off would be enough time to counter a lifetime of saturation? Perhaps six months off media, and spent in the Word and in prayer.
@Deep Strength,
Thanks for your answer.
“However, women’s attraction is a bit more fluid and tends to increase as a man becomes a stronger and more confident leader. Thus, finding a man with potential will generally be the best.”
I think that’s a very good point!
@Novaseeker
“In 2015, settling is very dangerous, because strong, maintained sexual attraction is the cornerstone of 2015 marriage due to the fact that the legal/cultural/social supports for sustaining a “so so” marriage are no longer there — so settling runs a significant failure risk. “
Your assessment is right, but I find it very sad.
@Dave (at 11:37am)
“She needs to get into the Word and renew her mind, so that she can think more rationally, and have a clearer understanding of her prospects.
“For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every [wo]man that is among you, not to think of [herself] more highly than [s]he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every [wo]man the measure of faith.” Rom 12:3 (KJV)”
Very good advice!
When my husband and I were first dating, and probably early in the marriage too, I used to think that I was out of his league; that he was lucky to have me.
The more I have matured in the faith, the more aware I become of how true the opposite of that is. He is a huge blessing to me, and sometimes I have to pinch myself that he is mine! It is only by God’s grace that we got together, because I certainly was not “thinking soberly” of myself back then.
I am trying to post a link, but not sure if it will work. If it doesn’t, please accept my apologies in advance.
If you don’t have the time to see it all, you can start @2:29.
“….I will never dance with my husband, because I don’t want him to lead”.
“…I will never cook for him because a woman’s place is not the kitchen”. LMFAO
*”First of all, he should have no expectations from me…”*
/ Proceeds to give a long list of her expectations.
Line up boys… She’s still single. Can you believe it?
I’ve never encountered any pastor who teaches such a thing as your “Tingle Gospel”. I’m not a church shopper so perhaps my experience in this matter is not as wide as yours. Please give examples of “even sincere pastors” claiming “a mans character is measured by a woman’s sexual attraction to him”. Every pastor I’ve met would scoff at such folly.
From that statement I’m assuming that you’ve never attended church on either Mother’s Day or Father’s Day. It is on those two Sundays that the tingle gospel is front and center in every churchian CEO’s message to his customers.
@Dave
“The other part is this: it is the male of the species that determines the behavior of the females that wish to have commitment.”
Say what? So Adam caused Eve to sin, is that right? It is all his fault by proxy? Do you ever stop shaming men or blaming all of women’s sins on men?
Eve was tricked, Adam was not. Adam was a pussy whipped mangina who couldn’t say no. Women’s first sin was being tricked by Satan (an alpha bad ass with loads of Game). Man’s first sin was cowardice, fear of losing access to that warm wet hole.
Cant hate on him too much though, Angels were damned for all eternity for the same reason. Read Genesis 6:4, couldn’t say no to the gash.
Keep spouting your goddess worship, say some prayers to Mary and tell men to marry those sluts.
@ Hank Flanders:
“Surely, there are other factors at work besides just sexual attraction in determining whether a marriage succeeds or fails, wouldn’t you say, though, Deti? Reportedly, Tom Brady and Gisele Bundchen could be headed for divorce, and Tom Brady is about as Alpha as one can get in the West. He’s good looking, rich, famous, and athletic, and is even at the top of his field in professional sports, so what straight woman wouldn’t be sexually attracted to him?”
Novaseeker has said this before: The rich, famous and beautiful at the very apex of our society live outside of the rules that apply to the rest of us. Or more accurately, it’s the SMP on radioactive steroids.
Gisele Bundchen has more money than most wealthy men. She doesn’t need Tom Brady or any other super-athletic, superalpha. She can go get another boy toy tomorrow. So she’s almost Brady’s peer. For his part, Brady can easily replace Gisele. They’re subject to different pressures, though, because they live their sex lives in the media and are subjected to unrelenting scrutiny. It’s one of the reasons famous people like actors, models and athletes date other famous people — because the “normal” people like us simply can’t live our lives in the fishbowl that the rich and famous regularly occupy. And there’s a different hierarchy there too based primarily on how famous you are. For example, famous people royalty are folks like the Kennedy family, Harrison Ford, Meryl Streep, Helen Mirren, Billy Joel, Cher, Anthony Hopkins, Gene Hackman, Denzel, Brad Pitt, Goldie Hawn, Kurt Russell and Tom Cruise (though Cruise has gone off the deep end lately) — people with real talent, real money and who have had long and storied careers and who have made (or perceived to have made) real contributions to society in an artistic or political sense. Barack Obama will join this group when he leaves office. (Republican presidents are excluded, or self-exclude, from this group because the intelligentsia hate them.) Next down are B and C list celebrities like comedians and workaday actors. David Letterman, Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, Bryan Cranston, Demi Moore, Bill Murray, Brendan Fraser, Ah-nuld, Bruce Willis, anmost working actors in TV and film. The Kardashians are also here, solely by virtue of their notoriety.
George Clooney, though, is in a class by himself. He has widely been held up as a sort of “patron saint” of alpha because he has (or is perceived to have) the whole package. He has good looks and is trim and in shape. He has acting chops. He’s good at what he does and has achieved a reputation for being good at it. He’s not the best actor who ever lived, but he’s good enough at it to amass wealth, money, fame and notoriety, and to maintain it over a lengthy time period. He has wealth, assets and money, which he earned and worked for. He has influence — he has used his wealth and fame to shape his corner of the world to his liking and to get others to do his bidding, all of which are the very definition of dominance. He has dated many beautiful women. He remarried, but only on his timetable and terms.
Clooney has carefully curated a public image of class, decorum, and gentility. There have been no selfies by women with Clooney in bed; no text scandals a la James Franco. There have been no Jaredesque sex scandals involving high schoolers. And no one else does charm and confidence like he does. He makes it all look so easy, in large part because it’s just who and what he is.
So they live in a different world than the rest of us. And the rules are “turned up to 11” for them (Spinal Tap reference, there).
…and then George went and married an over-made-up Barristress of Lebanese ethnicity from Doughty Street Chambers. Surely HE could have done better than that – even I would have turned HER down.
It was on my mind: The first American I ever met; I was eleven and I had a school friend who sounded English but his mother was a friendly (as you all are) and not entirely unattractive woman in her late thirties and one Summer afternoon after school I went round to his home (I forget why); she offered me Orange Squash and Cookies – Cookies, that was new word for me: they looked and tasted just like biscuits. Wonderful.
Opus:
I don’t condone it, but I would be willing to bet that Clooney still has scores of women willing to have sex with him on the down low, and that he would be well able to do so discreetly. No muss no fuss. No selfie BS; no text scandals; no sex trafficking a la Jared. And Amal would be none the wiser.
@entropyismygod says:
September 3, 2015 at 7:38 am
@Dave
“The other part is this: it is the male of the species that determines the behavior of the females that wish to have commitment.”
Say what? So Adam caused Eve to sin, is that right? It is all his fault by proxy? Do you ever stop shaming men or blaming all of women’s sins on men?
I am fully convinced you don’t read anything I wrote. You simply project your own ideas on me and respond from there. Where did I blame men for women’s actions in the piece above? Where did I shame men for women’s sins?
At least every man knows that when a woman wants commitment from a man, she will do everything to please that man so she can extract the commitment from him. What part of that is difficult to understand? I know we don’t agree on much, but at least we can agree on this, that, generally, “women are the gatekeepers of sex, and men the gatekeepers of commitment”, that men try to do everything to get sex from the woman, and woman tries everything to get commitment from the man?
If you wish to respond to something I wrote, at least read it first, and stop attributing to me what I never wrote. This is getting tiring.
I heard that it was a lavender wedding and that he needed to grow a beard. Will she be a future First Lady? I hope not as i really have difficulty pronouncing her name without mishap (just as I used to with Ursula Andress).
@Dave
“women are the gatekeepers of sex, and men the gatekeepers of commitment”, that men try to do everything to get sex from the woman, and woman tries everything to get commitment from the man?”
Women gate keepers of sex, sure men gatekeepers of commitment, sure. Women try everything to get commitment. Wrong. 100% wrong.
Women will stand in line for hours waiting to get gang banged at a rock concert by the band. they will flash, and send pictures and fight other women to get 5 minutes of sexy time with a professional athlete. Is that commitment?
Woman do not care about commitment. They want alpha. Betas are forced to be cucks, commitment producing resource mules for grudging pity sex.
OK, Dave, I guess we’re in agreement that Christ was likely rather average looking, being neither respulsive nor particularly handsome. An ugly or handsome person would have been easier for the Roman soldiers to pick out.
However, while the passage in Isaiah referenced Christ’s crucifixion, it also referenced Christ’s life in general. The mention of His appearance in verse two immediately followed the mention of His growing up, indicating that “not comely” was His natural state. Besides that, the language in verse two is too soft to describe the appearance of someone who’s been beaten and crucified. Someone who’s gone through a beating and crucifixion would simply be “not comely” or “not beautiful?” Someone who’s been through such an ordeal would be absolutely hideous, and we would hide our faces from Him, hence, the language in the next verse, which specifically is about Christ’s crucifixion.
@ Dave
By saying women try everything to get commitment you are falling into the “Men sexuality bad, women sexuality good”. If you honestly don’t understand this and think women don’t have strong sexual drives (only activated by alphas) then lets argue that point.
@Lyn87
Thanks for clarifying.
A couple of general notes:
– Dragonflylady, Why are you proud of your sister/friend/whoever? They may be great at business, but that will not support them when they are older and does not build civilization.
– Deti, you imply that immorality and being sinful are different things. They go together.
“Blue Pill. There are only sinful, fallen men. Some have indulged sexual sin more than others, granted. All are capable of it”
If you don’t agree then it is obvious you are a feminist in reverse.
Not a feminist in any sense. I’m for patriarchy under my roof. And men are fallen and sinful.
Dave said on September 3, 2015 at 4:38 am:
I’m perplexed as to your definition of the “future husband”. It seems he is either: A man who marries her, but refuses to forgive her for her past sexual sin. Why would he marry her if he didn’t forgive her? Or he is the man who should marry her (that is, man up and marry that sinner) but doesn’t because he is so self-righteous?
Yes, God will forgive the repentant sexual sinner (man or woman), but there are likely consequences.
You may consider the past sexual behavior of a prospective spouse to be irrelevant to the success of marriage. The evidence (as found in various studies) suggests that past sexual activity (sin) is connected to a greater likelihood of divorce.
In my opinion, considering past sexual sin when looking for a spouse is wise, because of the evidence that it affects marriage success, and because willingness to sin sexually suggests that the person is far from God and likely is sinning in many other ways.
Purely anecdotal of course, but my own experience with marrying a woman (n > 5?) ended in her frivolously divorcing me. So, let the buyer beware!
@Seriously Serving — I don’t think six months of abstinence from TV can undo the effects of a lifetime of TV viewing, but it’s a decent start in the proper direction.
It isn’t just the hunky movie stars that cause the problem — it is the endless viewing of other people who lead enviable lifestyles that are NOT available to the working and middle classes. Many of the lifestyles portrayed on television and in the movies would not actually be possible for the high end of the upper middle classes. Consider the movies that you have seen that have been about policemen, and picture the houses/apartments that those fictional policemen lived in. Ridiculous, really. Especially if the policeman’s wife is shown as a housewife and they have several well-dressed children.
The movie stars on TV would tend to make you think that the people interested in dating you are not good looking enough. The leisure-lifestyle that the people on TV lead consisting of exotic vacations, imported sports cars, unlimited free time and five-star restaurant meals would lead an ordinary person to be disappointed with his ordinary life. The non-stop home improvement shows (while sometimes very educational) would tend to make people dissatisfied with the sort of housing that they can realistically expect. And the people on TV never seem to have long-term issues such as children with serious medical issues, or neighborhood schools that are violent, etc.
If you are going through a tough time in your life, movies and TV can seem like an escape from your worries, but they almost certainly create more problems than they solve. If a Christian woman took a six-month sabbatical from video of all kinds (and from celebrity tittle-tattle, etc.) and asked the Lord to reveal to her the wrongful thought patterns that TV had created in her over a lifetime, the process could transform her entire outlook on life, whether or not she was actively seeking to get married.
thedeti
Gisele Bundchen has more money than most wealthy men. She doesn’t need Tom Brady or any other super-athletic, superalpha. She can go get another boy toy tomorrow. So she’s almost Brady’s peer. For his part, Brady can easily replace Gisele. They’re subject to different pressures, though, because they live their sex lives in the media and are subjected to unrelenting scrutiny.
That’s exactly right! Celebrities have more opportunities than the rest of us, leading to them always thinking they can do better than they’re currently doing. However, this mentality is not confined to celebrities who genuinely do have plenty of other options available to them. As we know, regular, everyday women also commonly have the mentality that they can do better than their current men, whether they can or not, and no matter how sexy any given man is, his wife is inevitably going to find flaws in him she doesn’t like. Every man is going to be inferior to another man in some way or another, and his wife is going to see that. What she does with those thoughts or that information is going to be largely based on her character.
@Original Laura “It isn’t just the hunky movie stars that cause the problem — it is the endless viewing of other people who lead enviable lifestyles that are NOT available to the working and middle classes. Many of the lifestyles portrayed on television and in the movies would not actually be possible for the high end of the upper middle classes. Consider the movies that you have seen that have been about policemen, and picture the houses/apartments that those fictional policemen lived in. Ridiculous, really. Especially if the policeman’s wife is shown as a housewife and they have several well-dressed children.”
My husband is a Police Officer… and I AM a stay at home mom. Our kids ARE well dressed, and many constantly accuse us of leading an “enviable life,” but that is the life we are creating together. You and other women who watch those shows and then become upset by comparing your life to others’, are the problem. You are the ones actively sinning against yourselves and God by not being content with what you have and coveting what others have. This would happen regardless of if you saw unrealistic couples on TV, you find people in real life that you would undoubtedly still envy… because you’re choosing not to deal with that sin.
We live very much under the standard of living, don’t have cable or watch regular TV at all – we let our kids watch cartoons on youtube (and its usually the older cartoons because they’re better than the crap that is out now a days for kids). We barely spend anything excess, drive older cars and have only gone on one real vacation in 8 years of marriage (not counting a very short “babymoon”).
What you’re talking about is women having the sin of envy and coveting. Sure maybe they should stay off TV to try to tame their temptations, but it is NOT what you’re saying about Police Officers and their (what you insinuate) unrealistic wives making them envious on TV because what they have is “ridiculous” and unattainable for middle class people. I’m sorry, we are “middle class” – lower in fact, and were “poor” or lower class wage wise in our past, and many people still call us “envy inciters” or actually envy our life. We’ve worked hard to have a joyful, wonderful life together for us and our kids and to reflect the blessings God’s given us. ,
Again, women with that sin of envy or coveting would have their problem even without TV. Until you, and the others you speak of, deal with your own sin, you will ALWAYS envy others. And make your own life very miserable and joyless.
Micha Elyi said on September 3, 2015 at 5:13 am
I hope that Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., who serves as president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, will qualify as a “sincere pastor”.
Quoting from his article The Seduction of Pornography and the Integrity of Christian Marriage (Part 2) (emphasis mine):
This certainly sounds like “a man’s character is measured by a woman’s sexual attraction to him”. Please note that the measuring is being done by the woman, whether consciously or not.
For more on the topic, see Dalrock’s posts
Beauty Taming the Savage Beast and
Reframing Christian Marriage (part 5).
Perhaps you’ve been blessed to only meet godly pastors, or perhaps you’ve led a sheltered life. Unfortunately, there are many pastors who are sincere Christians (maybe churchian would be the better name), but are not able to discern the truth, or are not willing to preach it.
“Perhaps you’ve been blessed to only meet godly pastors, or perhaps you’ve led a sheltered life. Unfortunately, there are many pastors who are sincere Christians (maybe CUCKSTIAN would be the better name), but are not able to discern the truth, or are not willing to preach it.”
Fixed it for you.
@OKRickety
“a man’s character is measured by a woman’s sexual attraction to him”.
Well is a Christian man’s character measured by a woman’s sexual attraction to him?
My husband is a Police Officer
Looking at the news, I’d suggest he find another line of work.
@Poke Salad
“Looking at the news, I’d suggest he find another line of work.”
Be careful Poke, if you say that too loud Cuckservatives and Cuckstians will call you RAYCISS!!!
Also, what a “classy” woman you are, to attack randomly Police Officers when they are being assassinated around our country.
And yet, you view their lives with envy. Very classy.
Would it not be more traditional to say ‘My husband is a Policeman?’.
no9 said on September 3, 2015 at 11:20 am
I apologize for not stating my position. No, it’s not. A Christian’s character (man or woman) is measured by God’s standard. A woman’s sexual attraction to a man seems to be greatly influenced by other factors instead of the man’s godly character.
Dragonfly,
Unless I am very mistaken, you completely misconstrued what Laura was saying. Her point (I think) was that TV inspires envy because it shows people living in lifestyles that are incredibly unrealistic for the jobs their characters are doing… such as portrayals of police officers with SAHMs and kids living in huge houses on his salary alone. These portrayals give the false impression that even middle-class people (a group that includes police officers), live lives of luxury, which prompts people who watch those shows toward envy when they realize that they don’t live like the “normal” people on TV do.
She wasn’t attacking cops – she was critiquing unrealistic cop shows.
Yeah, go ahead; call me blue pill. or Delta David. I welcome your labels with open hands, but I am not moved an inch by them.
Dumbo Dave still doesn’t get it.
I’m not going to assign the above labels to you, but you are if anything, more than a little “thick”.
Contrary to your strange admonition of Gunner Q “to get off Dalrock’s website”, perhaps YOU are the one who needs to leave if you can’t even understand the simplest of red-pill concepts (which has been the theme of the last, what 4 – 5 posts now?).
Your assumption is false.
I have certainly heard some doozies of Sunday sermons pedestalizing females and demonizing men on Mother’s Days and Father’s Days in the past (unexpectedly the preachers where I worship cooled it this year and avoided that for once) but I’ve never this “Tingle Gospel” stuff.
I’m still waiting for examples. Specific examples.
Lyn – given that people in the manosphere (mostly women) have attacked our life because I have a “blog with pictures,” attacked how handsome my husband is, called him “a thug with a badge” compared our family to the mafia because he’s an officer, and called us “envy inciters,” I think you’ve merely missed out on a lot of the manosphere drama created by women who constantly compare their lives to others’ lives. And her choosing to use an example of police in a time such as this is just bad taste, and truly low. To say their life is somehow enviable when they’re being assassinated all over the country is disgusting and disgraceful.
We don’t watch TV so have no idea what kind of shows she’s talking about with Police Officers having mansions or fancy cars (she didn’t say those specifically, but implies that). Obviously, she is the one watching these shows, and connecting it the “envy problem” she thinks other women have (of course, not her right?).
An envy problem, or more basic… a “coveting” problem is and can only be dealt with within the person actually sinning. Take away the TV, take away social media, and they will still find someone to envy or covet in their church or real life social circle.
The envious woman doesn’t need to merely get rid of her TV, she needs to get down to the root of why she is envious in the first place. This woman is giving SS the wrong advice, telling her to treat the symptoms and not the real, sin issue of the heart. An envious woman doesn’t value what she has, or have gratitude for what God’s already given her. She needs to stop being envious and learn how to have gratitude and contentment in whatever life circumstance she finds herself in. The coveting woman that thinks another’s husband is too handsome and that some woman shouldn’t be blogging because her life is so “enviable,” has an impure heart and is letting sin run her emotions and thought life.
I guess to explain more, it doesn’t matter if you see people on TV (her example) or in real life that are living lives of luxury.
When we were first married, there was a couple we were friends with that were able to travel many times a year, to exotic beautiful places! The husband was so young, but brilliant and already a CEO of a company (insane!!). We watched their vacation pictures on facebook all the time, meanwhile having very very VERY little to live on ourselves. I guess bitter people could say that this couple was bragging, but I don’t think they were at all, they were just living their life and sharing their experiences with family and friends on facebook. They were happy. 🙂
I didn’t feel envious seeing their pictures, I enjoyed seeing them! If anything, when I did see them go to France (somewhere I REALLY wanted to go) I felt a strong longing, but that was it – just a longing to go someday, not an envious ugly feeling. I was happy for them and amazed at what they were already able to do. It didn’t cause me to ever resent our own life situation, I knew later in life we could go travel and have vacations when we could finally afford them.
Envy or coveting… is a heart issue. And it has utterly nothing to do with the people living “envious” lives, it has to do with the women choosing to covet others’ lives.
Another example… I’m close friends with a gorgeous SAHM (my son actually told me once, in a moment of brutal child honesty that she was “prettier” than me LOL!!) who is married to a doctor, and lives in a beautiful home with a beautiful backyard and a sparkling pool. Haha, talk about a chance to envy!
But I don’t at all, she’s such a sweet, humble, beautiful friend, and I love her family and her children.
Envy or coveting, again… is a sin that can only be dealt with within that person feeling those ugly emotions. Take away the TV, take away the social media or blogs, and there will always still be someone prettier, richer, in a bigger house, etc.
The problem isn’t TV shows, it’s the women who allow themselves to give in to envy.
Dave,
I think you are trying to reinvent Jesus as an uber-Alpha to prove that female instincts are inherently good. We’ve heard this sort of thing before. “Chicks don’t dig jerks, they dig Christ but Christian men are so lazy and faithless they’re reluctantly settling for PUAs!” No, the truth is that God ordered wives to respect and obey their husbands *because* being good isn’t natural to female instincts. As Scott Adams once said, you don’t need leadership to eat a warm cookie.
Not only is the low SMV of Christ Biblical, (and I can give more proofs if you want,) it was an important part of his mission. He came in humility, not strength, to live as one of us, not as our undisputed master. One of the Bible’s strongest themes is that there is no relationship between a man’s desirability to people and his desirability to God. In fact, it’s often a negative correlation. Luke 18:9-14.
The number one reason the Christian Church attracts unsexy men is because it’s intentionally one of the places where they aren’t disrespected. Not to say they shouldn’t improve themselves, of course, but Christ came for the sick, not the healthy, and willingly associated with the outcasts of his society.
I am grateful Christ was a Beta. Those of us with no charm, no authority, no wealth, no girl, always picked last for anything… so was Our Lord. He didn’t just say “I feel your pain”. God is *with* us.
Thank you, God.
…
Dave @ September 2, 2015 at 9:50 pm:
“Or where else does a woman learn to express kindness and respect all men? Classroom? At the office?”
Through practice. A woman who thanks men who hold the door for her, who smiles at every man who speaks to her, who tells her girlfriends “that creep you’re talking about designed your iPhone. Be grateful!” and who thinks up other ways to show respect is becoming a better woman than memorizing Proverbs 31 ever will.
@Dave
““Or where else does a woman learn to express kindness and respect all men? Classroom? At the office?””
No. She learns it when she starves, when she begs for food. When she digs through dumpsters to hunt for offal not yet taken from maggots.
Dragonfly,
I’m just going off what she wrote. I remember watching Miami Vice years ago with Don Johnson’s character driving around in a Ferrari 308 that cost more than the house I was living in.
As for the cop thing – I’m out of the country at the moment, but in my military career I encountered a LOT of civilian cops. You may or may not know this, but most cops think of themselves as soldiers of sorts, and they speak pretty freely about what they do when they think they are “among their own.” I have been shocked more times than I can count hearing these guys freely admit to doing things for which they would cheerfully arrest and imprison anyone else they saw doing the same things… wildly illegal acts – including extreme acts of violence – committed while on duty. For example, an entire roomful of Oklahoma cops engaging in sexual torture to get a trivial piece of information from a guy who was, at worst, a very petty criminal… that story told to me by a cop who was laughing about it. Not one cop there arrested the guy who did it, or even attempted to stop it. It was a joke to them. A Maine State Trooper told me a “funny” story about how a bunch of them stood around and watched one of their colleagues pull a guy out of his car and beat the hell out of him in the ground… then they charged him with resisting arrest and assaulting an officer. So every time I hear somebody talk about the “vast majority” of good cops, I wonder why every time a pack of them goes wilding, not one of those ubiquitous “good ones” was present to do his job and put a stop to it. But when I hear these stories and ask my usual question, “What did you charge him with when you saw him do that?” they are invariably taken aback… it simply never even occurs to these totally average cops that anything a cop does is ever wrong, much less worthy of arrest. You can only do that for so long before somebody decides that if the law doesn’t protect them, then it doesn’t apply to them either. Like I said, I haven’t been following the news in the US lately, but I can say this: just like with feminism… actions have consequences.
One of the hard lessons the US learned in Iraq is that every time you treat people with disrespect you run the risk of turning neutrals into enemies. In their zeal to practice what we call “force protection” US troops would use a lot of force to capture people, the majority of whom were no threat and were released a few days later. But the tactic of “throw them on the floor in front of their terrified wives and children” caused more deaths in the long run because those guys HAD to strike back or lose all respect. Most of them were neutral toward the US before a bunch of guys kicked down their doors threw them face-down on the floor of their own houses, and zip-cuffed and hooded them in front of their families. The utterly predictable result? More bombs and small-arms fire aimed at US troops. When they figured that out and changed their tactics for dealing with people, small-arms attacks and roadside bombs suddenly decreased in those areas… the populace stopped protecting the real bad guys and started calling the US with useful information. Maybe US cops are starting to get the same sort of lesson in “push-back.” They’re civilians, not an occupying army. And even an occupying army can learn that acting lawlessly invites lawlessness in return. This isn’t academic to me – I knew guys who died over there. If you want your husband to keep coming home every night, tell him about that.
Contrary to your strange admonition of Gunner Q “to get off Dalrock’s website”, perhaps YOU are the one who needs to leave if you can’t even understand the simplest of red-pill concepts (which has been the theme of the last, what 4 – 5 posts now?).
I do understand the concept of red pill; I simply don’t embrace all it entails.
Red pill or blue pill, what matters most to me is what God’s word says about the situation. I am not interested in following the ways of the world when it runs contrary to the clear teachings of God’s word. If following the scriptures make me blue pill, I will wear that badge with honor. That has been my stand all along.
Lyn, “Dragonfly, I’m just going off what she wrote.”
So you agree with what she’s saying that it’s the TV shows causing envy in women? A tactic to shift the blame of their own sin onto something else?
Consider her advice to just not watch TV (which is probably good advice, however, it doesn’t get to the root of the actual sin itself). It’d be like her telling me, if I complained about seeing my friend’s vacations all over the world, to just unfriend her on facebook. It would only treat the symptom of envy, not actually confront the ugliness of the sin in my own heart.
Or what about my friend, the doctor’s wife? If I had been tempted to envy her bigger house, her better looks that even my little son pointed out LOL, her pool in her gorgeous backyard… would this “Originial Laura” person just advise me to not be friends with this lady? Would that REALLY solve my problem of comparing my own life to others?
No, it wouldn’t.
On the topic of what Jesus looked/sounded like, a point or two.
If you spend enough time listening to missionaries in the dark places of the world and the stories they get from converts, the dreams they have of Jesus are pretty consistent. He was a man of average size, average face and average build. He was otherwise “normal” and easily forgettable.
What brings people to Christ, in the physical manifestation, is not his appearance but the fact He is God. The presence of the Lord is utterly unmistakable. There’s a reason people fall to the ground in his presence, and it isn’t because he’s the glorious Alpha-god.
And something lost on us now is the Pharisees would have been ripped. Funny thing about our understanding of nutrition these days is that the “fast 2 days per week” and keep a controlled, functional diet is a sure-fire way to get in amazing shape. It’s not Pro-Athlete physique, but think Surfer in nature. That’s why they would make themselves look the part. They otherwise looked in phenomenal health.
Then here comes this man of no regard, who’s a carpenter from Galilee (of all places!), presuming to teach the ripped, supremely holy, perfect-in-the-law’s-eyes Men of the scribes what God actually means. Who was this fool? And how dare he question them? It was as if the janitor at the US Supreme Court pops around the corner and explains how wrong everyone else in the room is on the Law and its Use.
Yet Christ came not to bring Israel back to her glory by conquest of the flesh, but of the conquest of Death itself. That required the ultimate sacrifice. To bear the burden none of us could ever withstand. And on that alone he will always have my allegiance. But our God went even further than just bearing our burdens. He extends his gift of Life to any that reach out and accept it. Which is why a lot of us are here and a lot of us care very deeply about keeping the Faith. Because this world is fallen and it will try every second of every day to bring us down with it. This is why the Lord is worthy of all praise and glory. For He is and we are not.
PokeSalad @ 11:49 am:
“My husband is a Police Officer
Looking at the news, I’d suggest he find another line of work.”
No, don’t! We need guys like him! Police officers like her husband are one of the few safeties against tyranny America has left. They’re heroes, these good men who step up to wear the badge and put themselves in the line of fire between the feral Morlocks, the Godless Elites and an increasingly nervous public for little reward. It would be so easy for them to stop caring but America endures because they don’t.
All the media ever show is the bad/violent side of law enforcement. They never cover the award ceremonies, the victims who thank them for justice or their very lives, or the takedowns of disgustingly wicked men (who tend to resemble victim groups for some odd reason).
I wish I could’ve been a hero, too, but remembering names and faces is hard for me. I never would’ve been good enough to be a cop.
Dave said on September 2, 2015 at 9:50 pm
In Titus 2:3-5, Paul says (emphasis mine):
Apparently Paul thinks that older Christian women are to set the example of proper behavior in their own lives, and teach the young Christian women to do the same.
I think OKRickety tried too hard to squeeze Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr.’s words into Trust‘s story. Whatever is mistaken in the snippets of Dr. Mohler’s book OKRickety chose to present, it’s not “Tingle Gospel” as Trust described it.
As for your first link, it’s only a repetition of the same book by Dr. Mohler that you tried to use as evidence. With that link, you’re relying on somebody else’s prejudgement of Dr. Mohler’s words to carry your argument. It’s not that I don’t get it, it’s that I’m not buying it.
I’m still waiting for examples. Specific examples.
@Micha Elyi,
I have no idea what you want for “specific examples”, but I’m reasonably certain there won’t be any examples that specifically refer to “Tingle Gospel” or “a man’s character is measured by a woman’s sexual attraction to him.” As I said earlier, a man’s character is truly measured only by God’s standard.
I tried to provide a specific example. Trust, care to try? Anyone? If so, I wish you well.
Dragonfly,
I think you’re over reacting a bit.
As far as I can see, all T O Laura was saying was that young women who have been raised on popular culture might have unrealistic expectations as to what they “deserve” in a husband. And that if they take the time to get off TV, the internet, etc, and get into the Word, their eyes might open up to the wonderful men around them.
Wouldn’t you agree with that?
I don’t think that necessarily indicates an envy problem, it could be a pride problem (“I deserve to have a husband who looks like x, earns y and always takes me out to z”).
I honestly don’t think she was trying to attack you personally. Police Officers was just one example she plucked out of popular culture.
Not “over-reacting” at all… just getting to the bottom of what’s wrong with telling someone to stop doing something when the real issue is in their heart. I think if they spent time off social media, and away from TV, women with pride issues or envy issues would still find ways to covet in real life.
And again, you’re not in the USA, and Lyn admitted he’s willfully ignorant of what’s been going on for the past year or so with police in our country. Ya’ll simply don’t understand at all.
And of course she wasn’t attacking me personally… but that doesn’t negate that my family HAS been attacked personally, because of being accused of being “envy inciters.”
“And that if they take the time to get off TV, the internet, etc, and get into the Word, their eyes might open up to the wonderful men around them.
Wouldn’t you agree with that?”
I wonder if that would actually happen to women who are so easily influenced to be envious (and again, SS, she was the one who mentioned envy – so this IS an envy issue we’re talking about in case you missed it somehow) by what she called “unrealistic shows.” I don’t think the majority of women (especially ones who give in to envy) are really capable of opening their eyes “to the wonderful men around them” – the ones they don’t find attractive enough.
They’re only capable of it when they’re nearing 30, out of options, want children, and find someone who makes a lot of money to make up for the lack of attraction.
Dragonfly,
I agree that just removing the thing causing envy/dissatisfaction will not fix the heart issue. That’s why the advice was to get away from the media AND get into the Word and prayer. Removing the media, if it is a source of unrealistic expectations, will give a woman space to go before the Lord and fix the heart issue.
Similar to if a man is addicted to pornography, he would be wise to put in internet filters and have more sex with his wife. But these things will not fix the heart issue, which is lust.
I think it’s helpful for anyone stuck in sin to flee from the temptation AND to seek God.
T O Laura probably didn’t know about any history regarding your family on the manosphere, so I don’t think it’s fair to suggest she should have been “sensitive” to this when deciding on an example to use in popular culture.
Dragonfly,
Seriouslyserving is seeing the same thing I am. Nobody is blame-shifting by saying that pride and envy are anyone else’s fault. What Laura (and now I and SS) are saying is that TV is a source of temptation. I have no idea why anyone would find that in the least bit controversial. But whether your reaction is due to the fact that the random example she chose is TV cop shows, or the fact that you’ve been personally accused of inciting envy… you seem to have taken this personally. If you look back on this thread in a few days you’ll probably see it yourself. Nobody here is attacking you, or your family, or excusing anyone’s bad behavior.
Sources of temptation exist, and TV is one of them. That’s it.
Dragonfly,
I just noticed something I missed in your post at 9:01 PM. You said, “Lyn admitted he’s willfully ignorant of what’s been going on for the past year or so with police in our country.”
I admitted no such thing. I said that I haven’t been following it recently because I’m overseas at the moment. I’ve only been out the country (and away from most US media) since June… a far cry from “willful ignorance” for “a year or so.” Anyway, by any measure, being a police officer is a pretty safe occupation. In fact, as far as dangerous civilian occupations in the US, being a police officer comes in at a very distant 14th place… right behind “ground maintenance workers.” Yep, the guys working for the lawn-mowing services in your town are more likely to die on the job than than your husband is, although being a cop is slightly more dangerous than being an athlete, coach or umpire. Source.
SS “T O Laura probably didn’t know about any history regarding your family on the manosphere, so I don’t think it’s fair to suggest she should have been “sensitive” to this when deciding on an example to use in popular culture.”
Again, you’re in Australia. To attack police in the US is just bad taste and classless right now… it’s not that she should have know my family at all, but been aware of what police are generally facing in society in our country (assuming she’s American). I don’t write about it at all on my blog because it’s so negative, but I, and the police wives I know, are having a very hard time with enduring all the hatred our husbands’ are receiving. We are having daily threats to kill all white police officers … many are dying while just filling up with gas or going out in uniform or doing their jobs on the streets now. Even two or three days ago, it was announced by the Black Lives Matters movement leaders that it is “Open Season on whites and cops.” In my own city, because there was another police shooting of a man that was beating his wife and his infant (his infant had bruises on his body and a black eye) and then threatening the officers, we’ve had (in my city) more threats to kill white officers. This has become something they deal with all the time now. Everyone who is paying attention and understands what is really happening in our country knows this is going on and is alarmed and shocked by it.
And Lyn “being a police officer is a pretty safe occupation.” In light of all the recent (for the past year especially) shootings, the recent call to openly hunt officers or their family… the recent giving out all of our police and military addresses in my (and various others’) cities and calling for black people to follow officers home to hurt or kill their wives and children… you’re strange attempt to assure me my husband does a “safe” job is ignorant. Willfully ignorant of what a blue family is experiencing right now.
Lyn87 says:
September 3, 2015 at 2:57 pm
I was about to suggest that Lyn was being far too kind in his assessment of cops in the USSA today until it occurred to me that my premise was all wrong, as it almost certainly is for most of us where this topic is concerned. I, and I think most others in the western world, reflexively assume that cops are supposed to serve as peace officers (i.e., protectors of the natural law rights of the average citizen), which would make the all-too-typical behavior Lyn describes unacceptable and clearly criminal. Alas, the peace officer is a relic of the past; defunct, an anachronism, an amusing relic of a long-dead society who has no place in this one. We now have law enforcement officers, creatures whose duties are as ominous and odious as their job title suggests: “enforcement” of positive fiat laws that not only have nothing to do with natural law, but are anathema to it. “Enforcement” of said laws shall be carried out by any means necessary and without limit where use of force is concerned.
In short, Officer Friendly has been replaced by Officer Oinky. In that context what Lyn describes is perfectly normal behavior; in fact, it’s desired behavior. Officer Friendly the Peace Officer wouldn’t last a single duty day in such a culture as exists in today’s police forces. By not being a “team player” he would become an unfortunate “victim of an incident” in the line of duty.
Dragonfly,
Again, the police have become increasingly militarized in the past couple of decades, and now that pretty much everybody carries a means of making film clips on their phones, we are seeing that the police are not the “thin blue line” “doing a dangerous job” to “protect and serve” that they make themselves out be.
Take my examples. I learned that the majority of cops condoned illegal behavior by other cops because I know so many of them and they told me about it. They were proud of the things they got away with. They knew they could assault people with impunity – right in front of other cops – and expect them to cover for them. Let that sink in for a minute. In addition to being incredibly arrogant, it demonstrates a culture of corruption. It doesn’t even occur to the average cop that another cop will arrest him, even if he commits a serious crime right in front of him. Whether or not the FOP admits it, cops themselves know that they are unlikely to be held accountable for even the most serious crimes. There was a case just recently of a cop shooting an unarmed man in the back, and then dropping his tazer next to his lifeless body so he could claim he had been attacked. Rather than arresting him for committing cold-blooded murder right in front of him, his partner backed his story. What they didn’t know was that someone with a smart phone was recording it. Oops. The two cases I noted up-thread, proudly told to me by cops who witnessed the crimes, with groups of cops standing by and doing nothing, then covering for it… makes my doubt that “99% of cops are doing their job well.” If it’s 99%, why aren’t any of them ever handy when a dozen or so commit violence, rape, or even murder?
Like I wrote earlier, if you’re part of an organization that treats people with contempt and violence, and you refuse to keep your own house clean and cover for each other, you should not be surprised when your victims strike back. I don’t know long your husband has been a cop, but if it’s been more than a few days he has almost certainly seen his fellow officers do things that he would arrest a private citizen for doing. How many cops has your husband arrested?
@OKRickety
“A woman’s sexual attraction to a man *seems* to be greatly influenced by other factors instead of the man’s godly character.”
What factors does a Christian man not have then that a Christian woman won’t find sexually attractive?
… makes my doubt that “99% of cops are doing their job well.” If it’s 99%, why aren’t any of them ever handy when a dozen or so commit violence, rape, or even murder?
My thoughts exactly. When a policeman is attacked by any of these civilian “thugs”, the media is quick to come out with the harebrained claim that “most police officers are good people doing everything possible to protect us”.
I say bunkum. A good cop is a rarity. At least in America. It is probably harder to see a good, upright American cop than an attractive, virginal, slim, tall and godly unicorn which many men on this site are searching for to make their wives.
I do everything possible to avoid interacting with cops, or minimize the time I ever had to interact with them. When I am issued a speeding ticket I take it like a champion, and move on. I have never had the cause to ask for the help of a police officer in my entire life, and I pray I don’t need to. Most police officers are criminals in uniform and with a badge, and with a license to kill and maim defenseless citizens with impunity. I will never, ever encourage anyone in my circle of influence to become a police officer.
@Dragonfly
” We are having daily threats to kill all police officers … Even two or three days ago, it was announced by the Black Lives Matters movement leaders that it is “Open Season on cops.” … we’ve had (in my city) more threats to kill officers. … Everyone who is paying attention and understands what is really happening in our country knows this is going on and is alarmed and shocked by it.”. FIFY.
Make no mistake, it is not merely *whites* or *white cops* that are being targeted, but ALL cops. Blacks know that black cops are often harsher in their dealings with fellow blacks than some whites are. So, while the latest movement seems to be color-aware, the core of the anger is color-blind.
@GunnerQ,
Not only is the low SMV of Christ Biblical
I will have to disagree here. Godliness does not make a man of low SMV. On the contrary. Any woman who thinks otherwise is ungodly herself and should not be on the radar of any godly man.
The number one reason the Christian Church attracts unsexy men is because it’s intentionally one of the places where they aren’t disrespected.
Again, I must respectfully disagree. The church attracts them because God called those “unsexy men”, and He wants their achievements to be a reflection of His glory, rather than the expertise of those men. God also seems to derive some pleasure in humiliating the proud and arrogant. Hence He calls “unsexy men” and uses them to achieve what the “sexy men” cannot achieve. No one comes to Christ unless called by God Himself. That explains why two people could hear the gospel for donkey years; one receives it and the other does not.
“No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. ” John 6:44 (KJV)
Also, God calls “unsexy men” for His own purposes:
1 Cor 1:26-29 (KJV)
“26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
I think you are trying to reinvent Jesus as an uber-Alpha to prove that female instincts are inherently good.
Nope, I am not. And I never said women’s instincts were inherently good; it is not. All of us, in our natural state, are sinners and our hearts are desperately wicked—men or women. What I was trying to say was that Jesus was the perfect man—physically, socially, mentally and spiritually, and He is the type of man every man should aspire to be. No one can define masculinity better than Jesus Christ, and no man has ever succeeded in doing so. God made man; He must have a right to define what a true, masculine man looks like. It only stands to reason. Whatever Jesus lacked, a masculine man can do without; whatever He had, a masculine man probably needs. I am not trying to re-invent Jesus, but simply re-asserting Him as clearly revealed in Scripture.
Microsoft created Windows 10. No other company on the planet can define what the product is or should look like. It stands to reason that when the company unveiled the product, we must all accept the product as the best example of Windows 10. Same with man. God unveiled two perfect men specimens to the human race–one was Adam, the other Jesus. My argument is, there are no better specimens than those two–at least initially. The first caved under pressure; the other did not, and we are admonished to follow the example of the second.
Women’s current obsession with “hot, tall, handsome man with blue eyes” is a feminist invention. Most women throughout the ages were attracted to masculine men irrespective of their looks. It is men who placed a lot of importance on women’s looks, and still do; women of old hardly did. Feminism brainwashed women into their current way of thinking—that a man’s physical appearance is just as important as women’s. When a woman gets into the word, and gets her mind renewed, she will no longer consider those physicalities the be all of masculinity. And, personally, I am not interested in a woman who focuses on physicals to the detriment of other things.
My current girlfriend is very attractive, not only by my own judgement, but by the judgement of several of my friends. Not too long ago, I was having a light-hearted conversation with her about physical appearance; it went somewhat like this:
Me: I’d like you to keep yourself in good shape—keep those nice curves and proportional weight, because once I marry you, I don’t want to be looking at other women. A handsome man needs a beautiful woman beside him (I noticed an expression of disbelief in her face). What? You don’t think I am handsome?
Her: No you are not; you are just average looking. Your head is too big. [Chuckling]
Me: Haha. That is why I am very intelligent. You should be proud of that. That big head is full of brains. You know, I have always been with very attractive women? My very first girlfriend was very attractive, and even my ex was an attractive woman.
Her: No surprise there. You’re trying to compensate, because you don’t look very attractive yourself, so you preferred to be with attractive women so that your kids would look good……
Even though this woman knew I was not the hottest guy on the market, she was still in a relationship with me because she had not been brainwashed by feminism, and was not after physical appearance. I am pretty sure she was attracted to something else other than the physical.
This graph (that circulates the Internet recently) illustrates that “Black crimes matter” as well:
(hotlinked from here)
So [img] is also forbidden in the comments….
NYC is a great place to be.
I hope this doesn’t derail your blog Dalrock. This is the stuff the motivates my participation in the manosphere. getting sex and a wife takes a far back seat to this kind of thing
American police are little more than thugs with a badge and a gun. A good American cop is an exception, rather than the rule. The evidence attesting to this is overwhelming.
Isn’t this absolutely insane?
To make matters worse, the officer claimed that this man actually posed a threat to him. Really?
Good thing he was fired and later charged with a crime.
American police officers, with very, very few exceptions, are domestic terrorists bent on assassinating defenseless citizens.
This graph (that circulates the Internet recently) illustrates that “Black crimes matter” as well:
Could also mean the police enforces the law more against blacks rather than whites. Similar to the so-called “war on drugs”. Whites and blacks use drugs equally (some studies actually suggest that whites do illegal drugs more), but blacks are overwhelmingly arrested and punished for the crime.
These charts summarize this phony “war”.
Lyn87 @ 12:09 am:
“There was a case just recently of a cop shooting an unarmed man in the back, and then dropping his tazer next to his lifeless body so he could claim he had been attacked.”
I call shenanigans. A police officer walks up to a random guy, murders him in cold blood and makes a pathetic effort to rig the scene knowing in advance his partner will be perfectly okay with that and nobody will do any followup on an officer-involved fatal shooting? Not credible. The coldest sociopath wouldn’t do that just because of the following paperwork and review panels.
Even in that one-sentence description, nobody would believe it was self-defense when the guy “holding” the taser was shot in the BACK. If his partner didn’t turn him in then the crime lab would.
Had this story happened in Los Angeles, I would guess that the “unarmed man” was a known killer for a Mexican drug cartel who’d just sneered at the officers’ inability to arrest him on immigration charges, and if the cop didn’t drop him on the spot then the perp was going to murder somebody in the next 48 hours. That’s the sort of thing cops close ranks over and I’m perfectly okay with that.
I call shenanigans. A police officer walks up to a random guy, murders him in cold blood and makes a pathetic effort to rig the scene knowing in advance his partner will be perfectly okay with that and nobody will do any followup on an officer-involved fatal shooting? Not credible. The coldest sociopath wouldn’t do that just because of the following paperwork and review panels.
Really, Gunner? It’s all in the news, actually. Maybe you’ve been very busy of late. Why not take a look at this video, and make a comment.
A close look showed that the cop dropped something beside the dead man.
This is another one. There are several like that. this kid was 21 years old.
If that was a kid, then volunteering to military service ought to have higher acceptable age threshold.
As for the graph, try to analyze the importance of the last column. Black suspects are treated disproportionately lax to the threat they pose, on average, to the lives of policemen, if compared to other groups. Therefore, I am inclined to call BS on the slogan “Black lives matter”. Matter more if compared to lives of others? /my participation in this offtopic subject ends here
GunnerQ,
Dave beat me to it. Frankly I’m surprised you never heard of the murder of Walter Scott, since it was all over the man-o-sphere just a few months ago. Mr Scott was one of those unfortunate souls who lost his kids in a divorce, and then the judge charged him for the privilege and it was more than he could possibly pay. At the time he was murdered by Officer Michael Slager he was in arrears and figured he was going back to debtor’s prison once the “heroic boys in blue” figured out who he was. He was not under arrest and he had every right to leave, so he did. “Heroic Officer Slager” then drew his pistol and shot at his back eight times at close range – killing him in cold blood. The video shows that he then took his taser and dropped it next to Mr Scott’s prone body right in front of his partner, then claimed that Mr Scott assaulted him and took it, at which point he “had” to shoot him because he “feared for his life.” His partner backed his story until the video came out.
Shenaniigans? A 10-second Google search would have turned it up for you. You’re usually better than this.
If you are ever on a jury and a cop testifies, you should assume that he is lying.
“A 10-second Google search would have turned it up for you. You’re usually better than this.”
I didn’t have a name earlier. Now looking…
Nope. Officer Slager should have tazed him instead of shot him but there are too many red flags for me to sympathize with Scott. He fled arrest (or what he thought was arrest) and had a prior conviction for violence against police. Post-mortem, Scott is universally described as “gentle”, “lighthearted”, etc but further reporting (what little there was) had his brother admitting he was paranoid towards law enforcement.
More red flags. Slager “planted” the tazer then picked it up before crime techs arrived. Bad move if he was trying to frame the guy. The incident happened in daylight in a public place, which was a terrible location for a planned murder. His immediate behavior post-shooting is wrongly held as evidence; adrenaline and stress make for uncharacteristic behavior. He was held by the media as being an example of institutional cruelty yet the media isn’t digging deeper and it seems no other officer is even under suspicion. And why does Slager have no history of similar behavior? I saw one mention of a previous traffic stop but no details. Don’t tell me the media didn’t check for dirt.
So, a guy with a violent record goes far out of his way to avoid police, eventually encounters them anyway, resists arrest and gets shot instead of tackled… and then the Communist-controlled media blow it out of proportion in order to inflame racial hatred at the same time they’re pushing similar stories.
I don’t think Slager did anything worse than a bad call in the heat of the moment. I hope his life isn’t ruined.
This is not even a Manosphere issue. This is a “do not run from police” issue. Nothing makes an officer violent faster than an “I ain’t going back to jail” attitude.
no9 said on September 4, 2015 at 12:53 am
I’m sorry, but I’m confused by the wording of your question. To me, there’s a double-negative in your question. Do you mean “What characteristics does a Christian woman find sexually attractive but are missing in a Christian man?”, or something else? Please clarify and I will try to answer.
For now, I think a woman’s (Christian or not) sexual attraction to a man is determined by factors such as, but not limited to, his general physical appearance (“He is hot!”), his self-confidence (both in his physical actions, and in his verbal interactions with her), his ability to engage her desire to laugh and enjoy life at the moment, and his ability to suggest that he is the one who can fill that elusive, sub-conscious emptiness she perceives in her heart.
So, a guy with a violent record goes far out of his way to avoid police, eventually encounters them anyway, resists arrest and gets shot instead of tackled… and then the Communist-controlled media blow it out of proportion in order to inflame racial hatred at the same time they’re pushing similar stories.
Blow it out of proportion? Did you forget that this man was summarily executed for running away from police ONLY because he feared he would be arrested for nonpayment of child support? O my, where is your sense of compassion? Have our hearts become so hardened in America we can’t even feel anymore?
GunnerQ, so, if this guy were your uncle/brother/son/father, would you have responded the way you did? I hope not.
BTW, he was not under arrest, and he never resisted an arrest.
GunnerQ,
Sorry dude, by I just lost all respect I had for you. Slager did not know who he was, so everything you said about his “record” is utterly irrelevant. Even so, “record of violence against police” means nothing, since cops routinely tack on “resisting arrest” and “assaulting an officer” to the most benign encounters. In fact – in that very encounter Slager accused his victim of assaulting him, when clearly nothing of the sort happened. The only reason we know that was a lie is that this time he was being recorded. As for “no record” of Slager being violent, that also means nothing, since the only reason we know about his violent tendencies NOW is because this time, somebody had a camera rolling that he didn’t know about. His own partner backed his lie until the recording went public. Cops lie for each other all the time.
And in case you didn’t know it, this is the US, and citizens don’t have any obligation to talk to police, or even remain on the scene unless they are being detained, which he was not. The victim was neither under arrest nor being detained. He had committed no crime – his taillight burned out… that’s it. Slager had absolutely no reason to draw ANY weapon, especially his pistol. There was no threat and he knew it.
Resisting arrest? There was no arrest to resist… the victim was not guilty of anything other than being a male with a burned-out taillight, he exercised his right to leave the scene in a manner that was not threatening to anyone, and Slager got pissed off and murdered him in cold blood, then attempted to plant evidence so he could charge him with “assaulting an officer” and “resisting arrest” while covering for his own aggression and cowardice. Yeah… “Trooper of the Year Material,” there.
He should hang.
@innocentbystanderboston
>So yes, she should commit. But Dalrock, so many of them never have the opportunity to do so…. they are never asked.
No sympathy. I look for femininity… have great trouble finding it. If she has no suitors, it is due to her own choices.
Granted, each man has his own preferences. Thus for example, I declined to pursue one woman I thought of high moral character. But if no man wants her, there is likely a reason.
@TheDeti
>To all the folks who keep talking about chaste Christian women, I have a couple of things to say.
>1. WHERE ARE THEY?
J N has indicated there are some conservative Mennonite communities with such women. From my search, these are a little scattered; closest two to me are both 2 hours away. Makes it unfeasible to join a community without moving.
But for general churches in my city, I agree with your assessment.
@Dave
>There seems to be an unhealthy obsession with sex in this forum, in that women who have ever engaged in sexual activities prior to their conversion to Christ a considered damaged goods—something that has no basis in Scripture or in common sense.
See Deut 22.
Lyn87, Dragonfly
>But whether your reaction is due to the fact that the random example she chose is TV cop shows, or the fact that you’ve been personally accused of inciting envy… you seem to have taken this personally.
I also perceived this… but I thought about why DF might have the strong, personal reaction. She mentioned policemen being killed. Her husband is one. So perhaps her strong, emotional reaction is reflective of a strong loyalty and identification with her husband. If so, I’m glad to see it. Sure, she may need to take a breath (or 10) before responding to the next perceived insult, but loyalty in a wife would be great for any marriage. And no I am not looking to become a beta orbiter of another man’s wife (disgusting); I am just looking to “encourage one another” (Heb 10:24-25)
I see also the evil use of police officers and the military however. Not every policeman or soldier is serving God by punishing only wrong actions (Rom 13:1-7).
@Dave
>There seems to be an unhealthy obsession with sex in this forum, in that women who have ever engaged in sexual activities prior to their conversion to Christ a considered damaged goods—something that has no basis in Scripture or in common sense.
See Deut 22.
No I prefer you refer me to a passage in the New Testament.
We are no longer under the Law, so all the laws of the OT are not really binding on us anymore, unless such laws are brought over into the NT.
@Dragonfly. I used policemen as an example only because so many people have known at least one policeman at some point in their lives and because police dramas are such standard fare for the entertainment industry.
I used to struggle with envy in the past but at this point in my life my needs and wants are more easily satisfied. You appear to have a bad temper as well as a tendency to make false accusations. I never attacked the police and I never suggested that the sin of envy could be eliminated. I merely suggested that women who have watched a great deal of television over their lifetime might benefit from taking a break from it as television programming tends to increase envy.
@OKRickety
“For now, I think a woman’s (Christian or not) sexual attraction to a man is determined by factors such as, but not limited to, his general physical appearance (“He is hot!”), his self-confidence (both in his physical actions, and in his verbal interactions with her), his ability to engage her desire to laugh and enjoy life at the moment, and his ability to suggest that he is the one who can fill that elusive, sub-conscious emptiness she perceives in her heart.”
And does a Christian woman control how she perceives the above factors in her mind? What I am trying to understand with your post “A woman’s sexual attraction to a man *seems* to be greatly influenced by other factors instead of the man’s godly character”. Does she determine what she wants in a man? Does society determine what she wants in a man? Does biology determine what she wants in a man? Or does God determine what she wants in a man?
OTL, all the Police wives I know are defending their husbands right now, extra emotional, extra angry at anyone attacking them or their lives shown (yes, even the TV shows because only idiots take those for real). We know we are married to good men – extremely good men. Men who are BETTER than us and any man we’ve know… including our own fathers usually. And to see so many idiots hate on our husbands just because our husbands are braver than them, feel called to protect society, and actually do CARE about others, and will do their jobs protecting idiots who call them “thugs with a badge” protecting them no matter what, seeing that is extremely hard for a wife who loves her husband with all she has and hates that people view him this way just because of what he does. If you were at all capable of being empathetic, you’d probably be able to understand, My point was that a woman with that sin will envy no matter what, so telling SS or anyone that they should take care of the symptoms (that even you say “increase” envy – so if anything, not watching TV will only “decrease” their envy), ultimately doesn’t help them. You didn’t mention the real way to end envy (which would have been the correct response), and that is sad to me and shows that you didn’t know *how* to teach SS about the real issue behind coveting or envy.
Envy, or coveting, is a sin that can destroy lives and relationships, even destroy a person’s children. The Bible talks a lot about it, there are many verses to study – it’s actually kind of shocking what envy can do. So seeing you take some Biblically wrong approach of teaching SS something that will only decrease envy, instead of rid someone of it, along with your using police at a time like this in our country (showing you’re tactless), means you probably don’t know your Bible well enough to be teaching the real truth behind coveting.
And a side note, growing up we knew a family in our hometown where the husband worked for the department my husband works for. They had a big, beautiful house, the wife was able to be a SAHM, they had 2-3 kids all well dressed like you criticized, and they were happy, good people who went to our church. My mom still talks (with a good attitude) about how he made enough money to afford their home and let his wife stay at home raising his kids. So you don’t need to look on TV to find police living lives you think they shouldn’t be (again, what a nasty heart issue there). Part of why I took such offense is because I knew a family that fit your TV description to a “t”, and someday we will too hopefully, so yes, in a very real way, you *were* criticizing their life with an ugly heart attitude that they didn’t – or shouldn’t – be able to live it or *deserve* their lifestyle. That attitude right there, is the very crucible of what coveting and envy is. So maybe you aren’t quite over it like you think?
A lot of police learn how to budget extremely well and sacrifice many things (that outsiders don’t see)… that is what we are currently doing and many other families we’re friends with. A lot of police also do off duty jobs that pay well that supplement their income. And police who are in things like DWI go to court all the time and therefore, are always paid overtime on every pay check, and can afford those big houses or nice cars because of how much they’re working overtime. We know many blue families who have SAHMs… well dressed kids, and some that live in bigger houses because their husbands have promoted through the ranks over the years. So who are you to compare your life to other’s and say they don’t deserve the things they’ve sacrificed for, or worked extra for? Again, that is still the heart of envy, and shows you haven’t quite mastered it yet by taking it to God.
Someone who has mastered envy should be able to have nothing – utterly nothing – and still not feel envy towards others. They should be able to lose a child, or be infertile, and learn with God’s help, to not hold it against (envy or covet) other people who still have their children or are able to get pregnant. That is your goal here. Saying that you’re just at a point where your needs and wants are more easily satisfied means nothing with this sin. You need to be able to not covet even when you are poor, going through a trial like job loss, have to get food from churches because you don’t have enough money, meanwhile watching your friends go out to eat everyday – and still have a good attitude, and totally depend on God for your wants and needs and feel gratitude for the things you do have (however few).
There seems to be open season on police coming out of the White House and the Dept. of Justice. It has the governments blessing, and the blessing of street rats like Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakan. When the police officers were recently murdered. Obama didn’t say one word and the Senate or Congress were vewwy vewwy quiet. I am going to see if I can get some of these banned from entering Canada.
Dragonflygirl, I can’t imagine how difficult it would be to be a policeman out in the field every day in a position where they are not only targets for thugs, but their every action is going to be second, third, forth and fifth guessed from someone’s armchair, with the luxury to be living under the umbrella of safety provided by the very people they criticize. Even the base JAG here, who is a prosecuting attorney in the city has a contract out on him for so effectively prosecuting criminals. It’s a dangerous job and such people deserve our gratitude.
Dragonnfly If you are feeling “extra emotional” right now why not take a break from commenting on this thread. I am not an “idiot” I did not “hate on your husband” and I did not compare my “life to others and say they don’t deserve the things they’ve sacrificed for or worked extra for.”
Seriously Serving and Anonymous Reader thought my TV sabbatical idea was a workable plan for helping women be more realistic about what they actually needed in life. I never claimed it would do anything more than reduce envy and materialism. I’m not a theologian so my comment was never intended as a sermonette on the sin of envy. You say that my comments are “Biblically wrong.” If my comment had been Biblically wrong someone else on this thread would have already pointed out my error citing chapter and verse and they would not have felt any need to call me an idiot.
TV dramas are often set in areas with a high cost of living and extremely high housing costs such as LA NYC San Francisco or London yet portray middle income protagonists as living an upper income lifestyle . I’m surprised that you are unwilling to acknowledge this. It did not occur to me that discussing this would be a source of controversy.
dragonfly,
Try to have some empathy. Not everyone is as perfect as you or has is so figured out as you.
You really need to examine that speck in your own eye. While you accuse people of envy, you are ignorant to your own sin of pride and arrogance.
@Hank Flanders ,
If you’re suggesting that Jesus was an ugly guy physically, I will have to disagree, because there is no proof of his handsomeness or ugliness in scripture.
Because any unusual appearance is likely to be written about in a narrative and nothing was said about Christ’s physical appearance, I think we should leave it at this, that He was of average height and weight, and of average looks physically. Like 70-80% of the men of his time.
It is on record though, that no woman that Christ tried to address turned him down; that He was a very interesting person and could hold the attention of 5000 men for 3 days nonstop; that He was confident and could publicly ridicule the reigning monarch and remain on location for 2 more days, daring the king; that he was physically strong, single-handedly throwing out several traders from the temple and none could challenge him and that he was a skilled carpenter, as there was no record of complaints from any of his clients.
“Try to have some empathy. Not everyone is as perfect as you or has is so figured out as you.
You really need to examine that speck in your own eye. While you accuse people of envy, you are ignorant to your own sin of pride and arrogance.”
LOL… Not “pride and arrogance” … everything I have said is correct about the real issue behind envy and coveting… if she doesn’t know that or is too prideful to admit she gave horrible advice, that’s fine.
It’s not my fault that I can understand the basics of envy and coveting, and was bold enough to point it out to someone who was Biblically incorrect in offering spiritual advice.
If she’s going to give spiritual advice on here, a place where others are free to call each other out, make snide remarks about TV Police and their wives and children having houses and cars she criticizes they don’t deserve, maybe she shouldn’t be so sensitive herself when someone actually does call her out on being wrong about the entire issue overall.
The Other Laura was acting like a doctor… a fake doctor who doesn’t cure the disease but instead gives out pharmaceuticals to treat the symptoms. It’s cruel actually, because instead of her knowing her Bible well enough to be able to actually give solid advice on what she calls envy, she shifts the blame from the female, onto things like social media or TV so that the women will never have to actually deal with their sin of coveting.
“There seems to be open season on police coming out of the White House and the Dept. of Justice. It has the governments blessing, and the blessing of street rats like Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakan. When the police officers were recently murdered. Obama didn’t say one word and the Senate or Congress were vewwy vewwy quiet.”
Exactly… and things like this have been going on for far too long now in our country. For over a year now, so many police deaths by black thugs… execution style no less… and yet out of all the examples she could have chosen from TV (Kardashians anyone?), she deliberately uses police as an example to criticize their wives and children, even what they wear. Again, with the constant deaths of police for the past year, that’s just sick. There have been constant riots in different cities, constant false claims that have been proven to be lies when the media finally views the dash cams. Even yesterday I saw a famous black football player, lied on social media saying the police treated him badly. Good thing they had their dash cams and audio on to release to the media so we could all see that he was a liar, it’s now been publicized and the Police Department demanded an apology from him, but he’s black (and black-privileged) and refuses to admit he outright lied about how police treated him.
Blacks everywhere are challenging police, just recently one bludgeoned an officer with a pipe when the officer pulled him over for breaking the law, another black man in another incident took a Detective’s gun away from him because the Detective was so afraid to shoot a black man who was charging him… said he thought of his family and how he’d ruin his career for shooting a black thug not obeying orders to stand down. That Detective is lucky he’s alive… but he was a coward, and Police work isn’t for cowards, it’s for men who aren’t afraid to kill when they need to, in order to go home. The black man should have been shot when he wouldn’t stand down and was going for the Detective’s gun.
The black thug pistol whipped the Detective… and this is what Obama wants, a pussy-whipped Police Force that allow criminals to do anything they want.
Dave said on September 5, 2015 at 2:23 am
In the case of sexual sin, I agree that women (and men) who have truly repented of this sin are forgiven by God and are no longer accountable spiritually for it. However, there likely are non-spiritual consequences. Some Christian men may choose not to marry them because of it, and I don’t think the men sin in that decision. I don’t think there is any NT Scripture that says anyone is obligated to marry them, either.
As to “common sense”, I can’t prove it (can anyone prove “common sense”?), but it seems obvious to me that they are “damaged goods”. They can be a “new creature” “washed white as snow”, but they still have the results of their sin. This is true of all sin, not just sexual sin.
no9 said on September 5, 2015 at 4:31 am
A Christian woman’s perception of her desired man will derive from her upbringing (her parents, family, peers, church family, and society will all influence her desires). If she consciously considers what kind of man she wants, she may choose to base her ideal man on God’s plan, but she may be subconsciously swayed by the environmental influences already mentioned. And, indeed, I expect “biology” (which was created by God) will also be a factor. Hormones and chemicals will impact her physically and then emotionally when a desirable man is present in her life.
Even though she may have the best intentions, she will have difficulty following the righteous path. In Romans 7:25, Paul says “on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.” If the Apostle Paul had difficulty doing right, is it any surprise a Christian woman today would sin?
To make the best choices, she needs to have the support of Christians who know, follow, and teach God’s word. Satan will make every effort to get her to sin in her relationships with men, and especially in marriage, knowing that this union is foundational to the success of God’s church.
In short, a Christian woman has free will to decide what she wants in a man, but there are many significant factors that will impact that decision, and determine what she actually does.
So if I understand it correctly
Does she determine what she wants in a man? You say yes “she may choose to base her ideal man on God’s plan”
Does society determine what she wants in a man? You say yes “A Christian woman’s perception of her desired man will derive from her upbringing (her parents, family, peers, church family, and society will all influence her desires)”
Does biology determine what she wants in a man? You say yes “And, indeed, I expect “biology” (which was created by God) will also be a factor.”
Or does God determine what she wants in a man? You say no “a Christian woman has free will to decide what she wants in a man”.
@Dave
>No I prefer you refer me to a passage in the New Testament.
We are no longer under the Law, so all the laws of the OT are not really binding on us anymore, unless such laws are brought over into the NT.
Sad that you are willing to ignore what God revealed of his expectations for us, just because of when he said it.
Yes, the new covenant is available, and we are made righteous through that, not by works, per passages such as Rom 10:1-13.
Fine however, a NT passage. How about Matt 5:17-20? Think about whether Christ reaffirmed God’s previously stated expectations for our behaviour. Then also Heb 13:8, and again consider whether God’s expectations for our behaviour towards others is now looser than before. Then try Matt 22:34-40, and consider the same thing.
Of course, many who are prepared to ignore the entirety of the first 78% of the Bible (the OT) do so due to a disobedient spirit, and for them there is no point to reading the NT passages either.
I cannot see into the heart of any particular person however, per 1 Sam 16:7. (I suppose you may consider this passage obsolete as it is from the OT; I do not, so I apply it to myself.) Thus, I cannot say if this problem applies to you.
An atheist ‘speaking’, so for me it’s all hypothetical: is what was ordained for the nation of Israel necessarily the same as what is supposed to bind members of Christianity?
no9
Here is a summary of what I think at this time. A Christian woman is influenced by many factors (as previously discusssed) both in determining what kind of man she thinks and says she wants, and also in what kind of man she actually finds sexually attractive. Since she is human, she will struggle to follow God’s ideal. It will be a battle with her carnal, worldly nature that wants to do what is Satan’s ideal. Unfortunately, the result is often sin, not victory in Jesus.
@OKRickety
“Here is a summary of what I think at this time. A Christian woman is influenced by many factors (as previously discusssed) both in determining what kind of man she thinks and says she wants, and also in what kind of man she actually finds sexually attractive. Since she is human, she will struggle to follow God’s ideal. It will be a battle with her carnal, worldly nature that wants to do what is Satan’s ideal. Unfortunately, the result is often sin, not victory in Jesus.”
Thank you. Unfortunately I cannot see the difference between the actions and decisions of a non Christian woman [trying to live some or other moral life] and a Christian woman as you summarised. Because according to your summary God does nothing more than give guidelines and ideals and has no actual influence over a Christian woman’s life.
– Outward acts evince the inward purpose.
@Exfernal
Good question. I think you might have the wrong idea about what God said to Israel however. God sought to bring people into a right/correct/restored relationship with himself. And not just Israel; Israel was supposed to be a witness to the other nations, leading them also to God.
This primary part of God’s message has not changed. As part of being an example to the nations, God told Israel to love God and to love each other (for the religious out there, Matthew 22:34-40, Rom 13:8-10, Leviticus 19:17-18, Deut 6:4-9).
We humans are great a rationalizing sin/selfishness however; see this blog for further details 🙂 Since we are rather stubborn and selfish, frequently looking for how we can be selfish or have an exception, “just for us”, God gave a bunch of “clarifying” laws. Here, I’ll just quote what God had to say on this:
34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
That last sentence says all the law hangs on the requirement to love God and love others. That’s it.
8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
So, if I love my neighbour perfectly, I do not need to be told to not sleep with his wife. But since we are selfish, and rather stupid at times, God needed to say it. If I love you perfectly, I will not steal your stuff. Etc.
Now, per the “selfishness” part above, people continue to look for excuses to be selfish. Some people will claim we can now ignore what God said to the Israelites about his expectations re our behaviour, as if God has changed his views on things such as adultery, stealing, coveting, murdering, etc. I see no reason to believe this is true; the Bible does not say this. Actually, the New Testament says the opposite in Matthew 5:17-20.
The New Testament does make clear that we are saved by:
– accepting Jesus as our master/God/King, and
– believing that God raised him from the dead, and
– that we are saved by God’s (Jesus’) death on the cross, not by our own so-called “good works”.
(Romans 10:1-13 and Ephesians 2:8-10)
This message of salvation is actually not “new” in the New Testament. But some people think it was a new/changed message, so they think that they can throw out everything God said before. God however made clear, even in the Old Testament, that religious rituals were not good enough; some passages off the top of my head are Hosea 6:4-6 and Amos 5:21-24 and Isaiah 53:5-6.
God loves us, including you, so much that he arranged to be born as a human, primarily for the purpose of allowing himself to be killed as payment for the cost of MY and YOUR rebellion against God. (e.g. breaking his commands by stealing, lying, hating, etc.)
Do you really think being with a loving God like that is going to be bad for you? I would love to introduce you to him.
Any questions? Ball’s in your court 🙂
Thank you, I’m satisfied for now.
@Dale,
Sad that you are willing to ignore what God revealed of his expectations for us, just because of when he said it.
I did not ignore it of my own accord; He said to ignore it. He made the first old, that He might establish the second.
Christ has freed us from the requirements of the OT laws, and they are not binding on anyone alive today. Of course we can learn from them, because they were “written for our admonition”, but they will not be used to judge anyone alive today. It’s like the US Constitution. The original is no longer binding; we live under the amended Constitution now. Everything still useful in the original was ported over into the amended document, and the latter replaces the former. So also in God’s dealings: the NT replaces the OT.
And, the time when God said something matters tremendously, because He deals with us dispensationally. This is one of the sources of confusion to those outside who wish to criticize God and His word. They often say God contradicted Himself, or that He gave some orders that would be considered barbaric by today’s standards.
Fact is, God’s truths are in two broad categories: dispensational truths (which apply to specific periods in history), and eternal truths (which are apply to all dispensations). It is easy to see which is which by the context in which it was spoken/written.
And, if you subject yourself to any OT laws, you are obligated to keep every OT laws, according to Apostle Paul:
Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. Galatians 5:3
Thus, any OT law not specifically brought over into the NT is totally irrelevant to us today.
Of course, many who are prepared to ignore the entirety of the first 78% of the Bible (the OT) do so due to a disobedient spirit, and for them there is no point to reading the NT passages either.
On the contrary; they do so due to their understanding of the dispensation under which they live. We cannot pick and choose from the OT. If we must obey one of the OT laws then we must obey all of them. That means, we must start sacrificing animals to atone for our sins. In essence, undo Christ’s sacrifice for us. OT was a bondage; we are admonished to be very observant that no one brings us back into that bondage.
@ Dave says:
September 7, 2015 at 5:55 am
“I did not ignore it [the Old Testament] of my own accord; He said to ignore it.”
No, He didn’t.
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
The New Testament was in the beginning stages of being written when Paul wrote those words. Therefore, the scriptures to which he referred were obviously the Old Testament. How can we use the Old Testament to “teach, rebuke, correct and train in righteousness” if we “ignore it”?
As Paul makes clear, the Law – the Old Testament – makes us aware of sin. It makes perfectly clear how much God hates sin. It also points us toward Christ and makes clear – especially if we read it in chronological order – how God planned Christ’s arrival and brought it to fruition. It even points to Christ’s return. The Old Testament provides us with the greatest earthly examples of God’s love, grace and faithfulness to His people, and how He steers history to accomplish His will. It provides us with hundreds of fulfilled prophesies – a feat only an omniscient, omnipotent God can accomplish. And much, much more. Why would we want to ignore that?
Furthermore, the New Testament quotes the Old Testament hundreds of times. How can we understand the quotes if we don’t understand their context? How can we understand their context if we ignore the Old Testament?
Christians who ignore the Old Testament (far too many, unfortunately) know how the story ends, but they don’t know how we got there or – more importantly – why, and that’s a very precarious place to be.
The OT is only good for “teaching and admonition”. No one alive today is subject to its laws or provisions anymore. Jesus “fulfilled the OT Laws”. When a debt/promisory note has been “fulfilled”, it no longer has any power. Of course we can learn how it was written and get some teaching from it, but no one is indebted to it anymore.
Any applicable parts of the OT not replicated in the NT is completely irrelevant to those of us living under grace—which is pretty much everyone who has lived since the death of Christ.
Just because OT does not apply to us does not make it less inspired or even useful. It simply is no longer applicable to us anymore.
If you must subject a Christian to an OT demand/law/requirement then you must subject them to everything, not simply some of those laws. It is completely against the Gospel of Jesus Christ to ask anyone alive today to keep anything in the OT. And I mean anything–laws, ceremonies, rituals, holidays, etc, etc. They are done away with by the death of Christ. That is another reason why those preachers who preach “tithing” are teaching a wrong doctrine. Tithing is not required of the NT believer and there is no record that anyone–Jesus included paid tithes to, or received tithes from anyone. It is all an OT doctrine.
I have met a number of professed Chriastians who also preach that we are to keep the “ten commandments”. Well, the NT has more than 300 commandments for us to keep, many of which are far more stringent than the OT. The Jews were purportedly keeping the OT while they crucified their Messiah.
I do read the OT and learn from it, because it sheds some light on certain NT passages. It is also very rich in its historical contents. But I am not subject to any of its laws. They have all been done away in Christ. If a preacher cannot quote an equivalent law in the NT then the OT quoted is irrelevant and unnecessary. I could have added several bible passages to support my assertions but I am fairly certain you are alrerady familiar with them.
While I do agree with you that the OT was considered inspired scripture, we cannot overlook the fact that much of the NT was also completed at this time. Paul wrote his epistles to Timothy towards the end of his ministry, after much of the NT had been written.
Peter referred to Paul’s writing as scripture (2 Peter 3:16):
He [i.e. Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Questions for ya:
If we are still under the OT as you claim,
1. Would you advocate that those who commit adultery be stoned? Why or why not? Afterall, the OT made it abundantly clear what to do with those taken in adultery.
2. Would you offer animal sacrifices to take away sins? If not why not?
@Dave
“Questions for ya:
If we are still under the OT as you claim,
1. Would you advocate that those who commit adultery be stoned? Why or why not? Afterall, the OT made it abundantly clear what to do with those taken in adultery.
2. Would you offer animal sacrifices to take away sins? If not why not?”
If may intrude here. I will be more than happy to answer these questions for you on one condition …you first answer me this.
Where does Jesus say in the New testament that the Old testament “simply is no longer applicable to us anymore.”?
That is a fallacy. You cannot compare laws with debt. Laws are not owed, they are obeyed or not obeyed. One can be completed whilst the other can only be obeyed, followed or broken until the law itself as been rewritten. In their context, they have both been fulfilled, yet the law remains on the books and still needs to be obeyed.
Jesus came to uphold the laws of the Old Testament and to be the final sacrifice for our sins. That through him we can have eternal life. In some ways you are right. Indeed, we don’t need to follow the Old Testament laws to achieve salvation, we must merely repent to Jesus, ask for his forgiveness and be saved. This removed the need to sacrifice lambs, to circumcise men/boys, to stone adulterers. For these were covenants, rituals and punishments that were meant to absolve those people of their sins. Same with murder, which still carries with it the death penalty in some countries. With the New Testament, that changed, for Jesus now fulfilled the law by becoming the final sacrifice, the final punishment was meted out on him so that we no longer have to make that sacrifice ourselves.
However, we still sin, so those laws are still in effect, we just no longer have to pay the ultimate price if we repent to our Lord Jesus.
However, we still sin, so those laws are still in effect, we just no longer have to pay the ultimate price if we repent to our Lord Jesus.
The NT deals with sin also, without the need to consult the OT.
There are many acts that are considered sinful in the NT, but not in the OT. It’s like consulting a book on Windows XP, when you have Windows 10 before you.
@no9,
Where does Jesus say in the New testament that the Old testament “simply is no longer applicable to us anymore.”?
Did you mean to refer to any NT authority at all, or specifically to Jesus Christ? If it is the latter, maybe you should clarify whether we are obligated only to follow Christ’s teachings, while we ignore those of the Apostles and Prophets in the NT?
Jesus’ mission was in two parts: His “living mission” was specifically to the Jews; and His “dying mission” was to the whole world. Let us not confuse the two. Jesus Himself did not even live under the New Covenant, because the New Testament was not ratified until His death, since His blood was necessary to ratify it. That explains certain pronouncements of Christ that were actually not compatible with New testament doctrines as espoused by Paul. Yeah, I know you think that is blasphemy, but it’s not.
Please answer my question above and I will gladly respond to yours.
@Dave
“Did you mean to refer to any NT authority at all, or specifically to Jesus Christ?”
My apologies. I did not know that it was a difficult question to comprehend. So I will break it down.
Where …does… Jesus… say… in… the… New… testament… that… the… Old… testament …simply… is… no… longer… applicable… to… us… anymore?
I hope that helps.
“Please answer my question above and I will gladly respond to yours.”
Like I said, I will be more than happy to answer those questions for you on the condition that you first answer the question I posted. You are yet to answer it.
God’s laws don’t simply stop applying. Jesus did not come to abolish the laws but to fulfill them. The change between the Old Testament and New Testament are how these laws function when Jesus hadn’t died for our sins and how they function when he had. Rituals, covenants and punishments, which is what Dave is talking about, are not laws.
When you break a law, you are found guilty in a court of law and then receive a specific punishment dependent on the Judge. The punishment might have changed, cause Jesus now sits as our Judge, but the laws have stayed quite consistent. You still shouldn’t commit adultery, murder or thievery. You still shouldn’t be envious of others, you still mustn’t worship other idols.
Which acts are considered sinful in the New Testament but were not in the Old Testament?
@ Dave says:
September 7, 2015 at 10:37 am
“If we are still under the OT as you claim…”
To whom did you direct this question? Who made that claim?
If it’s true that…
“The OT is only good for ‘teaching and admonition’…”
… then, why did Paul state that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”? Why didn’t Paul state that the Hebrew Scriptures are “only good for ‘teaching and admonition'”? Or, is your argument that Paul didn’t mean “all Scripture” when he wrote “all Scripture”?
“…we can learn how it was written and get some teaching from [the OT]…”
How can you learn from something you ignore?
“The Jews were purportedly keeping the OT while they crucified their Messiah.”
The OT commands us to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength” (Deut 6:5). Christ is God the Son. Are you claiming that crucifixion is an act of love?
“I do read the OT and learn from it”
Earlier (September 7, 2015 at 5:55 am) you stated that you ignore the OT because Christ told you to. Which is it? Do you read it or ignore it?
“we cannot overlook the fact that much of the NT was also completed at this time.”
Who is overlooking that fact?
“Peter referred to Paul’s writing as scripture (2 Peter 3:16)”
Yes, that would be included where Paul wrote “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”. Note that word – “all”.
@Oscar, et al,
You can all go ahead and keep the OT then. That is your choice. But if you will be consistent, you better have your stones ready for those sinners and rapists, and see where that land you. And, while you are at it, don’t forget to keep the feasts of Tabernacles and the Passover, and make the annual trips to the non-existent temple to worship the way they did in the good old days.
But you won’t be the first set of people to do so though, as shown here:
Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” Acts 15:5
The early Apostles wasted no time in discrediting this attempt to bring Christians under the yoke of bondage of the OT laws. They held an emergency meeting and drafted a letter asking the Gentile believers not to listen to the preachers who would subject them to the Laws of Moses. See Acts 15:23-29
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.
Paul wrote the Galatians about the same thing:
It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision [in obedience to the OT laws. pretty much do anything in obedience to the OT laws], Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision [in an attempt to keep the OT Laws], that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law Galatians 5:1-3
For the rest of us, we’ll stay under the Covenant of Grace, and let the Covenant of Law be where God has placed it: in the distant past.
Yes, that would be included where Paul wrote “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”. Note that word – “all”.
That the OT was inspired is not in question. It is the relevance of the laws, ceremonies, requirements, demands etc on today’s believer that we are talking about. In its entirety, the OT is no longer binding on us anymore. God has made the first (i.e. the OT) “old” so that He might establish a second (i.e. NT). Now, that which is old is ready to pass away.
…By calling this Covenant “New,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear….” Hebrews 8:13
@ Dave says:
September 7, 2015 at 3:19 pm
“You can all go ahead and keep the OT then. That is your choice.”
Does that mean you’d like to discard it?
“But if you will be consistent, you better have your stones ready for those sinners and rapists, and see where that land you. And, while you are at it, don’t forget to keep the feasts of Tabernacles and the Passover, and make the annual trips to the non-existent temple to worship the way they did in the good old days.”
You avoided my questions above. Who stated that we are still under the Law? Can you provide a quote in which I stated that we’re still under the Law?
“But you won’t be the first set of people to do so”
Again: where did I state that we’re still under the Law? Can you provide a quote?
“For the rest of us, we’ll stay under the Covenant of Grace, and let the Covenant of Law be where God has placed it: in the distant past.”
For the fourth time now: where did I state that we’re still under the Law? Can you provide a quote? Can you provide any direct answers to the direct questions I asked you?
@Dragonfly,
I think you need to take it easy. Calling people idiots for stating facts that have been confirmed again and again in real life is not very wise. It is possible that your husband is one of that rare exception among police officers who is upright and takes his commitment to society seriously. But that does not take away from the fact that police officers, by and large, have been extremely bad to the citizens of this country. Many men and women have been sent to early graves as a result of relatively minor interactions with American police officers. There are very many bad apples among police officers. Even those who are not actively victimizing defenseless citizens are providing cover for their many colleagues who do. Evidence of this, again, is overwhelming, and not subject to dispute.
We all hope and pray that things will change for the better. After all, you still have your family. Many women have been turned into young widows and many kids turned into orphans as a direct result of the actions of police officers. That too, is indisputable.
For the fourth time now: where did I state that we’re still under the Law? Can you provide a quote? Can you provide any direct answers to the direct questions I asked you?
It was Dale who implied that we were still under the OT. Or at least that OT laws were still binding on us today, which is not true. This was where it all started:
After the above, there was a lengthy piece by Dale, effectively stating that the OT is still binding on us today, something that has no basis in the NT.
@Oscar
“You can all go ahead and keep the OT then. That is your choice.”
Does that mean you’d like to discard it?
Answer:
…everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.
Romans 15:4
But that we are not under it’s requirement is also very clear:
For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
Romans 6:14
Dave @ September 4, 2015 at 6:24 pm:
“GunnerQ, so, if this guy were your uncle/brother/son/father, would you have responded the way you did? I hope not.”
I expect the same treatment for myself. If the police stop me for whatever reason, either I cooperate with them or I don’t take it personally if I take a bullet. I have the right to remain silent; I do not have the right to “book it”; and if I act guilty then the officer should assume I really am guilty.
“BTW, he was not under arrest, and he never resisted an arrest.”
So he fled police because he mistakenly assumed the police knew what he’d done? I bet nonpayment of chilamony wasn’t the crime Scott was thinking about.
Scott didn’t want to go back to jail. Slager sent him to God instead. Everybody wins.
@Lyn,
So, I count four shenanigans. Scott was killed for running from police, or if you prefer a tail light; he was not killed over chilamony. Officer Slager’s supposed attempt to plant a weapon is unfeasible. The scene was a daylight suburban area making a motive of “murder for fun” extremely unlikely. And I found no evidence of institutional police brutality.
One thing I learned as a Californian is that racemongers prefer to publicize incidents in which the police look guilty but are actually innocent. This allows them to double-dip on the outrage. First you have “a murdering cop!”, then the jury that’s given all the facts acquits him and “see how The Man is keeping you down!”
That’s what I see in this incident. It’s all political theater. Next step in the script is Slager’s exoneration followed by race riots, followed by blacks voting 95% for the Democrat Party in 2016 while race pimps skim money off Federal reconstruction loans. It’s all win for those who control the Narrative.
Meanwhile, I want Officer Slager patrolling my neighborhood. The Communists wouldn’t hate him if he was one of them.
Scott didn’t want to go back to jail. Slager sent him to God instead. Everybody wins.
I think Gunner has clearly shown who he is not.
@ Dave says:
September 7, 2015 at 6:15 pm
“It was Dale who implied that we were still under the OT. Or at least that OT laws were still binding on us today”
Thank you for clarifying to whom you directed that comment. I can’t speak for Dale, and he’s perfectly capable of speaking for himself, so I’ll drop that subject.
Thank you also for your direct answer and for using Scripture. It does, however, bring up another question. If…
…everything that was written in the past [the OT] was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.
Romans 15:4
… why would we want to “ignore it”?
@Dave
I thought we had an agreement Dave? We answer each others questions. No arguing just questions and answers.
I did say “I will be more than happy to answer these questions for you on one condition …you first answer me this. Where does Jesus say in the New testament that the Old testament “simply is no longer applicable to us anymore.?”
Don’t you want me to answer the questions you posted? Or can’t you answer mine?
I fail to see why this is difficult.
a) To answer Dave’s implied question in “the OT is still binding on us today, something that has no basis in the NT”, the answer has already been given above. You appear to simply did not want to read it, understand it, or submit to it. In case you forgot to read it, here it is again: “How about Matt 5:17-20? Think about whether Christ reaffirmed God’s previously stated expectations for our behaviour. Then also Heb 13:8, and again consider whether God’s expectations for our behaviour towards others is now looser than before. Then try Matt 22:34-40, and consider the same thing.”
Maybe read the Matt 5:17-20 passage three times, to help it sink in.
b) Re Dave’s statements about us having to still obey the feasts, sacrifices of animals etc.: I will admit I did not already state this above, so it is an addition. Suppose an army General gives 100 standing orders. Then at a later date, he changes 10 of them, cancels 10, and adds 50 new ones. How many standing orders do you now have? It is foolish to think the answer is only 50. Or only 60; the 50 new plus 10 modified and thus recently restated. The attitude of many people who appear to be Christians is that the answer is only 60; just the ones they find in the NT, either as modified, restated or new commands.
The correct answer of course is the 80 original that were not canceled or changed, the 10 modified plus the 50 new, for a total of 140. I am pretty sure that any soldier, lawyer or policeman will confirm this. Feel free to speak up y’all… Any military or lawyers out there disagree? This is really common sense I think.
For Dave’s various challenges about having to submit to each and every law in the OT…
For the need to sacrifice animal: No, because God cancelled those. Not I cancelled them as an arrogant human who thinks he can decide for himself where he can disobey God’s inconvenient commands. God’s word does cancels them. See Hebrews; start with chapters 6 and 7.
Need for a special order of priests who offer sacrifices per OT: No, because God cancelled those. Not I cancelled them, God’s word does. See Hebrews; start with chapters 6 and 7.
Need for food purity laws: No, because God cancelled those. Not I cancelled them, God’s word does. See Romans 14:1-4 and 14:5-5 and 14:15-16.
Need for special days: No, because God cancelled those. Not I cancelled them, God’s word does. See Romans 14:5-6.
Need for physical circumcision: No, because God cancelled those. Not I cancelled them, God’s word does. I gave you verses for the first 4 above, which I assume (perhaps wrongly) that you won’t read anyway, so I’ll be too lazy to look this one up, but it is in Paul’s epistles. Anyone out there know off-hand?
So, God has the right to change or cancel his own laws. I, as an arrogant, prideful human may think I also do…. but I do not.
I think a big part of the misunderstanding is failing to recognize what Oscar (I think) tried to address above. The OT is not just one piece of information. Yes, there was the sacrificial system and ceremonial cleanliness laws, to show people they were sinners who needed forgiveness. And yes that portion has been rendered cancelled, or paid in full, by Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice (Hebrews).
But the OT also has information about history. This is completely unrelated to the “looking forward to forgiveness by the coming messiah”, and thus is still true.
The OT also has information about God’s expectations for our behaviour toward him. Oscar mentioned the “no idols” rule. I am unaware of any hint that God changed his command on that one, so YES, I still accept the law to not worship Baal, Satan, Molech, or women (per feminism). One of Paul’ epistles talks about people worshiping the creation, instead of the creator; this is clearly idolatry to me. And yes, idolatry is specifically mentioned in the NT, in case you need to see it: Gal 5:19-21.
The OT also has information about God’s expectations for our behaviour toward other people. Again, as feministhater mentioned, God spoke against adultery and coveting. And yes, those are still valid. Otherwise, why would Jesus have EXTENDED the adultery command in Matt 5:27-28? How can you extend a command that is, itself, invalid? For an example for coveting, see Hebrews 13:4-6 (be content with what you have; opposite of coveting the wife another has).
Yes, God still has expectations for your behaviour. But your behaviour will not give you salvation. Paul’s big issue with following God’s expectations, as stated in the OT, was not that we should no longer feel restricted from slutting around with other people’s spouses. But rather that we should fight vigorously against anyone who tries to add ANYTHING as a requirement for salvation. Christ’s sacrifice is 100% sufficient for salvation; no good works required. And, now that you have accepted Christ as Lord, ACT like it. As in, be submissive to God and what he commands; add to your faith good works. John 14:23-24, Matt 28:18-20, James 2:14-26, 2 Pet 1:5-8, Eph 2:8-10.
Dave misapplied a passage from Acts 15. Again, as previously mentioned on a prior thread, if we read the whole passage, and start to read at verse 1 in that same chapter, you will see these words:
“Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.””
So the false teachers were not saying to obey God’s stated expectations for our behaviour toward God or toward others, but were trying to add a requirement for salvation (“you cannot be saved”), as if Christ’s sacrifice was less than 100% sufficient. THAT is why Paul and the elders in Jerusalem responded in the negative.
I need to have the maturity to hold more than one idea in my head at the same time if I am going to apply the OT or NT correctly. Not everything in the OT is related to salvation. Or the NT for that matter.
@no9 says:
@Dave
I thought we had an agreement Dave?
I asked you to clarify your question; you did not. Just because Jesus did not say something during His earthly ministry does not mean we are exempted from doing it. The writings of Apostles John, Peter, Paul and many other NT writers are just as binding as the sayings of Christ Himself., because they were all sent by God to say/write those things.
When you restricted your question to only what Christ said, you indirectly placed the writings/sayings of the other NT authorities on a lower level than those of Christ, which is simply not true. If you were stopped by a low level police officer for instance, you had better obeyed, because he carries the authority of the Governor of his state, and ultimately the authority of the Commander in Chief of the United States.
Jesus did not say many things that we needed to know, for at least two main reasons:
First, His earthly ministry was specifically to the Jews. Even the Syrophenician woman was initially refused help because she was not a Jewess. Jesus said “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the household of Israel” (Matthew 15:24). In other words, He was more focused on trying to win the house of Israel back to God through peaching and miracles than in addressing the needs of the Gentiles. The latter ministry was left for the disciples.
Secondly, His hearers were not ready to understand and accept several things He would have shared with them, as Christ Himself clearly stated:
I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now…. John 16:12
Thus, just because Jesus did not address a specific issue does not mean we are off the hook from doing those things. As long as any NT writer has addressed it, we are obligated to follow it to the letter.
A short answer to your question is No, Jesus did not say we are no longer under the OT; Paul and the Apostles did. And this is as binding as if Jesus or God the Father Himself had said it, because the Apostles spoke for God and for Christ.
In the future, if I request that you clarify your question, I suggest you oblige me, because my request will never be out of a desire to avoid answering the said question; your response could save both of us a lot of time and writing.
@Oscar
…everything that was written in the past [the OT] was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.
Romans 15:4
… why would we want to “ignore it”?
When it comes to “What does God say about this situation and what is expected of me or of others?”, the OT is not going to give you an answer; the NT will. So OT is best ignored at that time so that you can focus on the NT. Even if the OT gives you an answer, if the answer goes contrary to that of the NT, you must ignore what the OT says. You cannot put new wine into old bottles, brother.
So, in the example I gave at the beginning, the question was, “What do we do with women who had been involved in sexual sins before they came to Christ?” Dale sent me to Deuteronomy 22. I requested a relevant NT passage; he refused, stating obliquely that the OT passage would answer my question. I replied that that was not the case. No one alive today is subject to the OT laws anymore. Not even the Jews.
Here are the texts of the passages:
The Fulfillment of the Law: Matt 5:17-20 (emphasis mine)
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but TO FULFILL.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, TILL ALL BE FULFILLED.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
.
Questions:
1. Did Christ fulfill the Law? Yes he did. He did not live under grace, but under the Law (“But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law” Gal 4:4). Covenant of Grace came into effect AFTER the death of Christ, because the NT needed Christ’s blood for its ratification.
2. Why did Christ live under the law again? To release ALL those who have been under the law, so that they won’t be subject to it any longer.
“But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.… Gal 4:4,5
3. The purpose of the OT laws was to bring us to Christ. Those under the law struggle every single day of their lives to keep up with the demands of the law. So, like a strict headmaster, the law pulled our ears each time we failed, until Christ came, who gave us an escape from the law:
“But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.” Gal 3:23, 24
4. What happens after we come to Christ? We no longer need the law. It becomes irelevant in our lives. We live under the law of Christ
“But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.” Gal 3:25
5. You may go on keeping the law, but just be aware: once you start, you must continue it; you are obligated to keep every OT law, not just a few of them.
6. No matter how perfectly you keep those laws, they still won’t guarantee you eternal life, or make you righteous before God, because there is no law given which can give you eternal life.
“Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law.” Gal 3:21
The OT laws have fulfilled their purpose and are therefore no longer relevant.
If the above is not clear, then I don’t know what is.
Hebrews 13:8 (NIV):
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
I don’t see a conflict in Christ’s eternal existence and Him abolishing a law which has served its purpose.
The Greatest Commandment: Matthew 22:34-40 (NIV)
34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Sure, that is the summary of the law and the prophets.
Just because God established a New Covenant does not mean he wants us to start living sinful lives. Far from it. He merely wants us to achieve holiness of life through a better, internal method, not through the observance of some external rituals.
@Dale
God’s laws in the OT were all contained in a body of agreement called “A Covenant”. All the laws were the terms of that covenant, and they ALL intertwined with each other. God did not merely modify, or reviewed, or selectively canceled some of the terms of that covenant. He made the Covenant with its attending laws completely obsolete, replacing it with a “New Covenant” which has its own body of laws, promises and expectations. Let us not get things confused here.
The OT Covenant would not work if you took out the Priesthood, or the daily sacrifices, or the circumcision for example. Those were some of the pillars which kept it standing.
The New Covenant completely replaced the Old Covenant, making the latter completely irrelevant in our lives. God Himself did it, not me or anyone else.
To that effect, God did away with the Priesthood.
He did away with the temple
He did away with the circumcision
he did away with the sacrifices
He did away with the systems of punishments
He did away with the system of rewards
He fulfilled the expected promises
He expanded the recipients to include the Gentiles
No, the General did not give 100 standing orders. He created a single document called a Covenant, and within that document was a 100 orders. After the people had failed to keep the terms of that document, he decided to replace that document with another one, with much help to his troops. So he created another Covenant, with a set of new laws, promises and expectations.
I think that was what happened. The new document actually has many more orders, but they are much more relevant to the whole world, not merely to a particular tribe.
@Dave
“I asked you to clarify your question; you did not. Just because Jesus did not say something during His earthly ministry does not mean we are exempted from doing it.”
I am confused Dave. First you say that I did not clarify the question then you answer the question that you claim I did not clarify.
So we are in agreement that Jesus did not say anything of the sort.
And as per our agreement here are the answers to your 2 questions.
“1. Would you advocate that those who commit adultery be stoned?”
No
“Why or why not?” Because there is no Law in the Old Testament that says a woman should be stoned for adultery.
“ Afterall, the OT made it abundantly clear what to do with those taken in adultery.”
Yes it does but it is not the law.
“2. Would you offer animal sacrifices to take away sins?”
No
“If not why not?”
Because the sacrifice of animals was for payment of past trespasses. The full payment of all trespasses… past, present and future was paid in full by Christ. One cannot pay a debt that is already paid in full. That would be fraud.
Now our agreement was for the first questions.
If you want me to answer the question of “If it is the latter, maybe you should clarify whether we are obligated only to follow Christ’s teachings, while we ignore those of the Apostles and Prophets in the NT?”
Then first answer me these questions. In Matthew 7 Jesus says
21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
Seeing as no New Testament was written at the time Jesus said this I would like to know what Jesus meant by doing the will of the Father? And if the workers of lawlessness should depart from Jesus what law are they breaking?
Why do these articles always make it seem like the bottom 80-90% of guys don’t exist?
I signed up for Tinder recently. Swiped right to everything for three days straight. Only got one match in that time – a morbidly obese girl.
My stats: 27, 6’3″, 165 lbs., 6-pack, full head of hair, normal looking face.
You need Game, and some gym time.
No, the General did not give 100 standing orders. He created a single document called a Covenant, and within that document was a 100 orders. After the people had failed to keep the terms of that document, he decided to replace that document with another one, with much help to his troops. So he created another Covenant, with a set of new laws, promises and expectations.
God does not change the terms of a covenant after it has been ratified. If anything is to be changed from it, the whole covenant becomes null and void. At least that was Paul’s argument here:
Galatians 3:15 (KJV)
Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
So the notion that God took out a few portions here and there from the OT, while leaving the rest intact, is contrary to the Scriptures.
@Dave
“So the notion that God took out a few portions here and there from the OT, while leaving the rest intact, is contrary to the Scriptures.”
Then why do you do it?
“You can all go ahead and keep the OT then.”
Romans 2: 12”For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
17But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God 18and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; 19and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? 22You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. 24For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”
25For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. 26So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regardedb as circumcision? 27Then he who is physicallyc uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written coded and circumcision but break the law. 28For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.”
[Pay attention to how circumcision is differentiated from the law.] So Dave are we not instructed to be doers of the law?
Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/09/06) | The Reactivity Place
So Dave are we not instructed to be doers of the law?
Which law, OT or NT law? Does the term “we” mean today’s (NT) believers?
Please forgive the ignorance and simplicity of this question (and if it is too ignorant and simple-minded, please accept my apologies and ignore this post):
I thought that the old covenant was between God and the Jews, and the new covenant between God and all the world that comes to Christ? Such that the old testament rules still apply to the Jews, because God would never break a deal or go back on a covenant with His people, but they do not apply to Christians who are saved under the new and everlasting covenant of salvation under Jesus Christ?
Forgive the interruption if I have entirely missed the point. I am not a bible scholar. Thank you for the edifying conversation.
You need Game, and some gym time.
lol … yep, the princesses today think they are in a league 3 to 5 points above where they really are.
@Siobhan,
Such that the old testament rules still apply to the Jews, because God would never break a deal or go back on a covenant with His people, but they do not apply to Christians who are saved under the new and everlasting covenant of salvation under Jesus Christ
The OT has been done away with, even for the Jews. God did not break His word to the Jews. The OT fulfilled its intended purpose and is no longer in effect. After the death of Christ, God systematically dismantled the Old Covenant, replacing it with the New. God’s plan was for both the Jews and the Gentiles to become saved through Christ, so that both will come to God as one body.
Jesus hinted to His disciples that He had other people (non-Jews) who would be saved:
“I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.” John 10:16
The Jews were still expected to come to God through Jesus:
“We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified” Gal 2:15, 16
God’s ultimate goal is to unite both Jews and Gentiles into one body in Christ, making them the “Bride of Christ”; He did this by abolishing the Old Covenant in its entirety:
“For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups [i.e. Jews and Gentiles] into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity” Ephesians 2:14-16
Generally speaking, the Jews today do not believe their Messiah had come, so they are still struggling to uphold the Old Covenant, which God has since abolished. However, the time will come after the Tribulation when they will embrace Jesus as their Messiah (“They will look upon him whom they have pierced” Zechariah 12:10 ).
I am confused Dave. First you say that I did not clarify the question then you answer the question that you claim I did not clarify.
So we are in agreement that Jesus did not say anything of the sort.
Please re-read my response to you. That Jesus did not say anything of the sort is completely irrelevant. Apostle Paul and the others said/wrote it and it is just as binding as if Jesus Christ Himself had said it.
If you had clarified your question we wouldn’t be discussing this point at this time.
Yes and no, Siobhan. On the one hand, the old covenant never provided salvation. The ancient Jews were saved by believing Christ would come, just as we today believe Christ has come. Anybody who rejects Christ today is condemned whether or not they follow the old covenant. (If the old covenant had provided salvation then Christ’s death would have been unnecessary.)
On the other hand, Jews and God still have a relationship going. So far as I can tell, Messianic (Christ-believing) Jews are still required to obey chunks of the old covenant like observing holidays and no intermarriage. Also, some prophecies regarding them have yet to happen. For example, the seven-year period in Revelation that modern Christians refer to as the Tribulation will be the completion of a 490-year long punishment of Israel.
Why have two covenants? One quirk of the Christian God is He’s big on symbology and parallels. Everything is a metaphor or has an ulterior meaning. So, God built a nation from scratch in order to illustrate a lot of important issues… but not to provide salvation. So, Christians study the old covenant and history without trying to obey it.
…
“You need Game, and some gym time.”
He already has six-pack abs and Game doesn’t work if she won’t even talk to you. Cody is probably a stable, disciplined, healthy, courageous and confident man with a promising future… and that’s probably why he doesn’t get noticed. Girls these days seem to have no use for men beyond entertainment.
I can’t advise but at least I can relate as another tall athlete with no romantic success. It sucks to be punished for doing good.
It sucks to be punished for doing good.
I’m thinking a bullet dodged is a good thing. I don’t get why the younger guys (who aren’t players) WANT to be noticed by women in the US. It’s not like they haven’t seen someone they know go through the ringer. If they spent one day in the company of women who were raised without feminism, I doubt they would want anything else. I know I didn’t.
For anyone else who is reading/listening in, a few points.
I tried to point out that the OT has many parts and many commands from God, not just the portion on the sacrificial system. Dave responded:
“No, the General did not give 100 standing orders. He created a single document called a Covenant, and within that document was a 100 orders.”
Dave’s characterization of the OT as “a single document called a Covenant” is obviously incorrect due to the nature of the included materials. E.g. prophecy that has still has yet to be fulfilled (as Gunner Q mentioned) – if the prophecy is still unfulfilled, then it either was a false prophecy that did not happen as God said it would, or it is still outstanding, valid, and God will act upon that unfulfilled prophecy at some point in the future.
Plus the praise songs, prayers (Psalms), and all the other portions I mentioned above, many of which are not covenantal in nature.
Interestingly, Dave’s assertion is also wrong however by the number of covenants he gives. There is not a covenant (as in one) in the OT. The OT is a collection of books across time that actually include many covenants. I went through a study or sermon on these a long time ago, but off the top of my head, there were these:
– covenant with Adam; don’t eat, and live forever (which Adam screwed up)
– covenant with Noah. This one was unconditional upon Noah’s behaviour, so it is still in force. That covenant being (at least in part) to never to flood again; and the rainbow is the “sign of the covenant I am making between me and you”; see Genesis 9. Have you seen a rainbow lately? Yup! I guess that covenant is still in force.
– covenant with Abram / Abraham. This one was unconditional upon Abraham’s behaviour, so it is still in force.
– covenant with David, I think…? If he and his sons obeyed, that there would always be a descendant of David on the throne.
– covenant given at mt Sinai, which I am sure is the one of which Dave is thinking
One other point, regardless of this discussion, is the need to use all of a passage, and humbly look for possible alternative interpretations. Not because I want to find 10 interpretations, so that I can switch between them as I need, to support my then-desired “correct” answer. But rather to identify them, so that:
a) I am aware of the other possibilities, and realize how my current view might be wrong
b) I can consider each, and possibly reject it as inconsistent with the entire text.
For an example, Dave emphasized part of Matt 5:17-20 as follows:
>18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one
>jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the
>law, TILL ALL BE FULFILLED.
If Dave focuses only on the second “till” clause, the one in caps, we are left with the conclusion that the law is good only until “all be fulfilled”. Well, per above, what possible interpretations can this give?
– until the promise to exit slavery in Egypt is fulfilled
– until the arrival of the promised savior/messiah
– until the death of the promised savior/messiah
– until the end of all prophecy given by God
– until the end of this age, when the current earth and heaven passes away as there will be ‘”a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.’ Rev 21:1
– and any other “fulfillment” you can think of, whether Christ ascending into heaven at the end/”fulfillment” of his earthly ministry (Acts 1:9) or anything else.
So, what do I do? I can be lazy, pick the “fulfillment” I want, and demand everyone else agree with me. After all, I have the support of Scripture! It is right there!
Or I could start by reading the whole sentence, instead of focusing on just the part that says what I want.
There are two “till” portions in the sentence.
1) Till heaven and earth pass
2) TILL ALL BE FULFILLED
Well, looky here. If we apply both of the “till” clauses, instead of just the one I like, we can now reduce the list of possibilities I listed above. And only one makes the final cut. (Hint: it’s not the third one.)
Regardless of our disagreements, I wish to thank Dave, Oscar, Gunner Q, feministHater and the others for their contributions. I was challenged to give my views on this topic awhile ago, and I had not yet sat down to research it. Thanks for the contributions, conflicting views for my consideration, and kick to my backside to get me working on it.
JDG:
>I don’t get why the younger guys (who aren’t players) WANT to be noticed by women in the US. … If they spent one day in the company of women who were raised without feminism, I doubt they would want anything else. I know I didn’t.
+1. When I was in my 20s, the girls I interacted with were also young, and thus had substantial natural beauty. (Cue someone with the SMV graph.) But even when they had this substantial natural beauty, I could not find more than a couple women that I actually found desirable. I thought that was really strange. Was there something wrong with me? And no, I was not into pornography (at that point I may have seen maybe 20 naked pics, at a cousin’s house).
I understand now that the problem was the deliberate choice to destroy their own femininity, and thus their potential for beauty.
– wearing men’s clothing (for me this means pants) instead of women’s clothing, which is detestable (Deut 22:5)
– deliberately removing their “glory”, by cutting their hair to a short length (1 Cor 11:14-16)
– being fat instead of self-controlled (Titus 2:2-6)
As JDG indicated, go spend a day with feminine women. You will never again consider accepting those who deliberately seek to be the worst/laziest possible version of themselves.
no9 said on September 7, 2015 at 12:47 am
I see that I failed to remember and state that God has provided the Holy Spirit to assist Christians to live righteously. In that regard, God does have influence in the lives of Christians.
Nonetheless, God allows man free will and the spiritual battle between good and evil often results in sin.
The original question related to the sexual attraction a woman has for a man. A Christian woman may know God’s ideal and desire to follow it, but she has free will, meaning she may not control her behavior and act as God wants, but instead choose to follow her carnal longings.
Actions reflect a person’s character, but they are not a perfect mirror of it.
Dave
If you’re suggesting that Jesus was an ugly guy physically, I will have to disagree, because there is no proof of his handsomeness or ugliness in scripture. Because any unusual appearance is likely to be written about in a narrative and nothing was said about Christ’s physical appearance, I think we should leave it at this, that He was of average height and weight, and of average looks physically.
What are you even talking about? Maybe you missed where I said this on September 3 at 8:33 am: “OK, Dave, I guess we’re in agreement that Christ was likely rather average looking, being neither respulsive nor particularly handsome. An ugly or handsome person would have been easier for the Roman soldiers to pick out.”
@Dave
“Which law, OT or NT law? Does the term “we” mean today’s (NT) believers?”
There is only one law Dave. Did I not say in my previous post [Pay attention to how circumcision is differentiated from the law.] You are confusion administration processes with law. Think for a moment Dave.
John 8 : 3The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”]]
Now Jesus fulfilled the whole law. So if it was the law to stone the woman then He would have done it. However the law is that one should not commit adultery. That is why He told her to “sin no more”. The law isn’t to stone the adulterer – that is the punishment.The punishment is death for breaking the law …the price was paid by the Blood on the cross for those in Christ. The law stays the same until the Day of Judgement.
So are we not instructed to be doers of the law?
“Please re-read my response to you. That Jesus did not say anything of the sort is completely irrelevant. Apostle Paul and the others said/wrote it and it is just as binding as if Jesus Christ Himself had said it. If you had clarified your question we wouldn’t be discussing this point at this time.”
I did Dave. That is why I broke it down again for you. And we are in agreement that Jesus said no such thing. And the relevance is of utmost importance.
John 14:15“If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper,f to be with you forever, 17even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will beg in you.
Are you suggesting that the words of Jesus require more immediate obedience from us than the inspired teachings of the early Apostles?
@Dave
“Are you suggesting that the words of Jesus require more immediate obedience from us than the inspired teachings of the early Apostles?”
Why would I? I have not found in the Bible that the inspired word from the Holy Spirit and those of Jesus contradict each other. On the contrary they support each other flawlessly.
I do however know that people like to use deconstructionism of what is said in the Bible to fit their own personal narrative. Either because of their ignorance of the Word…or due to blatant attempts at deception. I try and help the former and expose the latter.
So are we not instructed to be doers of the law?
So if it was the law to stone the woman then He would have done it.
Nice try. But you forgot this:
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;… 2 Cor 5:19
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Mat 9:13
However the law is that one should not commit adultery. That is why He told her to “sin no more”. The law isn’t to stone the adulterer – that is the punishment.
What is the difference between a law and a piece of advice? Why, the law ALWAYS comes with a punishment. You cannot properly call any pronouncement a law unless it has associated punishments when broken, and/or rewards when obeyed. So I think it is impractical to separate a punishment from the associated law, because without one the other does not exist.
The punishment is death for breaking the law …the price was paid by the Blood on the cross for those in Christ. The law stays the same until the Day of Judgement.
So are we not instructed to be doers of the law?
I am not following your logic here. At first, you implied that the law did not require a punishment, then you followed that statement with this, that Jesus was vicariously punished for the crime of the offender. Which is it, really?
There is only one law Dave. Did I not say in my previous post [Pay attention to how circumcision is differentiated from the law.] You are confusion administration processes with law. Think for a moment Dave.
I am still waiting to see what part of the passage you quoted was an administrative process outside the law.
For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Romans 2:25
For the purposes of this discussion, circumcision is actually part of the OT laws. That was the first covenant that God made with Abraham, and it formed the foundation of every other covenant God later made with his seeds. Anyone who did not get circumcised would not even be considered a true seed of Abraham.
Genesis 17:10
“This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.”
Circumcision may be likened to being admitted intom a college. Without that admission, you may go ahead and attend classes all you want, you still will not be considered a student of that college. So when a person was not circumcised, keeping the rest of the law was unnecessary, and unrewarding. But to separate circumcision from the body of OT laws required to please God is absurd, actually.
I know Dale mentioned the different covenants in the OT and he was right. I wanted to avoid being too granular, so I put everything together as OT (pre-Christ’s coming) and NT (post-Christ’s coming) which, for all practical purposes, is actually what we’re talking about.
@Dave
“What is the difference between *a law* and a piece of advice?”
And here lies the problem Dave.
So tell me… What is a law? How does it come into being? How does it change? Can it change? What is its purpose? Does it have a purpose? Upon whom can it be enforced? Is it supposed to be enforced? How can it be enforced? How can it come to an end? Can it come to an end? Does a law require the impossible? Are their exceptions to a law? If there are exceptions what are they? Are there alternatives to a law? What makes something lawful? What makes something unlawful? Does a law always allow justice? How does a law seek justice? Does a law seek justice at all? Are we instructed to be doers of a law? If not what are we suppose to do? If we are not doers of a law does that make us lawless?
[So before I continue with your erroneous claims of a different “New Testament Law”, let’s see if you actually know what it is that you are dealing with]
@Dave
Oh and before I forget. Just to show how much you waffle about what you say and claim.
“For the purposes of this discussion, circumcision is actually part of the OT laws.”
Really well you brought it up as one?
“He did away with the circumcision”
You are cherry picking Dave.
So before I continue with your erroneous claims of a different “New Testament Law”, let’s see if you actually know what it is that you are dealing with…
I think you are the one waffling. See how you asked a million questions without actually saying much.
Anyway, here is where I stand:
1. I personally, am not under the OT laws—be they “administrative” as you called them, or non-administrative.
2. Every law which I need to obey are reproduced or newly enacted in the NT, and I am confident that as long as I obey those laws, I will do just fine.
3. The purpose of the law–both in the OT and in the NT–is to produce love in the heart, first to God and then to our fellow beings. OT laws failed to do that, but it succeeded in bringing us to Christ.
4. God has overlooked all our past failures for the sake of Christ and has given us a new lease on life.
5. Now all we need to do is to cast our faith on Christ, and live in obedience to the teachings of the NT Apostles, prophets and teachers
6. If we fail at any time we should boldly go before God to ask for His forgiveness and help. Again, all based on the sacrifice of Christ.
I will have to end my contribution to this topic here.
Thank you and Dale and others for keeping me on my toes-:)
@no9
>However the law is that one should not commit adultery. That is why He told her to “sin no more”. The law isn’t to stone the adulterer – that is the punishment.
That is a really interesting point. God’s expectations for us include refraining from adultery. Which is reaffirmed and extended in Matt 5:27-28.
And yes, the Bible also includes many punishments. I have previously thought of those as “civil laws”, whereas you label them as punishments, but regardless, they are separate from God’s commanded behaviour. Thank you for pointing out that distinction clearly.
I’m not sure I entirely agree with your statement as you gave it, but definitely food for thought. It would seem to support/agree with a prior statement, from Dave I think, that Rom 13:1-7 replaces all punishments, giving complete authority over punishments to the contemporary local governments instead.
Thanks.
@Dave
“I think you are the one waffling. See how you asked a million questions without actually saying much.”
Well the truth is not found in the answers given but in the questions asked.
Did you know Dave that up until the early 20th century that the Bible was required study material for those studying law? Many of the secular things you do during the day involves the laws from the Bible, Old and New Testaments. You see the Bible is a book of laws and The Law. You on the other hand have been ascribing some law to others.
Now your question of “What is the difference between *a law* and a piece of advice?” is an indication that your entire argument might have been based on your lack of understanding what it is you are dealing with. Ignorance of facts may excuse but not ignorance of law.
You refusing to answer the questions, to clarify your position, is proof thereof. Fraud lies in general expressions.
Now my point has never been that there is no New Testament Law. My point has been that *your* New Testament Law does not exist.
“I will have to end my contribution to this topic here.”
And here is a maxim of law. –“He who leaves the battlefield first loses by default”.
Like I said you don’t even know what it is you are dealing with.
J N
Regarding chaste Christian women, well, look for this:
– Obeys the Bible (dresses modestly, covers her head, avoids even the appearance of evil, etc)
– Is a member of a church that promotes the same
– Good family history – not required but good parents with good marriage are a very very positive sign
– Her / her peer group mostly get married off between 18-21
– Spends time with high degree of accountability: short term Bible school; mission activities that are not just vacations; works in a job for a respectable business owner also in the church; etc
That is not a “righteous fox”. It does mean the chaste Christian women won’t be found near the world. And they won’t be looking for worldly men.
I was recently around 100 – 200 or so women like this. Ignored ’em, I was there for fellowship with other men (which was excellent). On the way out, I did get accosted by a lady who asked me if I’d met any of her 4 daughters yet… my answer was “no”, since I had been busy with my area of focus. One of her daughters strolled in and attempted a few minutes of smalltalk. Looked her up later, she’s 21, which means, worried about becoming a spinster.
Could we talk more about this through email? Maybe Dalrock could send you the email address I post with here. If not, then I could just wait a little while and post it here, anyway.
Pingback: Conserving Grammatical Orphans | Things that We have Heard and Known