New commenter Tab Spangler linked to a blog post by Glenn Greenwald on a woman who fears being outed for her infidelity because of the Ashley Madison hack.
I am female, hold a job with a lot of responsibility, have three kids, one with special needs, and a husband with whom I have not been intimate for several years due to his cancer treatments.
I also used to write about marriage law policy, encouraging traditional marriage for the good of children. My institution has a morality clause in all contracts.
Mine is a loveless, sexless, parenting marriage. I will care for my husband if his cancer spreads, we manage good will for the sake of the children, but we cannot talk about my emotional or sexual needs without him fixating on his death and crying.
Greenwald chose this woman’s example in order to argue for sympathy for the people who are being exposed by the hackers:
As I argued last week, even for the most simplistic, worst-case-scenario, cartoon-villain depictions of the Ashley Madison user — a spouse who selfishly seeks hedonistic pleasure with indifference toward his or her own marital vows and by deceiving the spouse — that’s nobody’s business other than those who are parties to that marriage or, perhaps, their family members and close friends. But as the fallout begins from this leak, as people’s careers and reputations begin to be ruined, as unconfirmed reports emerge that some users have committed suicide, it’s worth remembering that the reality is often far more complex than the smug moralizers suggest.
Certainly anyone with a dying spouse is in an incredibly difficult situation, and by focusing on a woman Greenwald made a sympathetic reaction much more likely by his readers. However, the woman’s profound lack of repentance for her infidelity and empathy for her dying husband are astounding. Her only repentance is for previously holding marriage vows as sacred:
My experiences have led me to soften my views of marriage as my own marriage is a deeply humbling, painful longterm commitment.
I expect to be ridiculed by colleagues, to lose my job, and to be publicly shamed, especially as a hypocrite…
When my outing happens, I suppose I might as well take a stand for those who are trapped in bad marriages. Many of us are doing the best we can, trying in our own imperfect way to cope with alienation, lovelessness, and physical deprivation.
She and Greenwald are on the same page here; the only sin is calling out sin (unless you are calling out the sin of calling out sin, which is of course righteous).
She is also very open about seeing her husband as a villain for not offering her a free pass to whore around while he is sick (and she suggests dying). For what else could she mean when she complains that she can’t “talk about my emotional or sexual needs without him fixating on his death and crying”? If he is unable to perform sexually, no amount of discussion will change that. What she clearly wants is his blessing to do what she did, but he is too selfish to give her this.
Greenwald frames his post as fighting for kindness for the cheating wife, but what he has done to her is anything but kindness. This woman is so self centered she can’t see her own wickedness; Greenwald fails her* by taking the easy path of coddling her and encouraging her to see herself as the victim. Greenwald gets to feel good for protecting a woman, even though he is in reality only harming her. Nothing Greenwald writes will change whether this woman is ultimately outed and loses her job (she has a morals clause in her contract), but he has encouraged her to see her wickedness as not wicked at all. Even worse, she claims she is making a martyr of herself (by remaining married and cheating) “for the children”, but by encouraging her view of herself as the victim it is very likely the children will have the burden of not just a dying father, but of a moral message that their father was cruel for not giving their mother license to cheat while he was dying.
*Greenwald is writing from a secular perspective, but fails her in the same way Christian men are failing Christian women.
Dalrock
I see this a lot and I grew up Mormon.
For what else could she mean when she complains that she can’t “talk about my emotional or sexual needs without him fixating on his death and crying”.
She could mean that he’s a narcissist looking at the end of his life, and doesn’t give a damn about anyone but himself. If he’s got working body parts and can use them, or ears to listen with, then he can still be a contributing member of the marriage. If he turns every attempt to talk about her needs into a discussion about him and his needs, I can hardly think of a more demeaning, selfish attitude a man can take.
As such I would suggest that it’s a bit presumptuous to get up on your hind legs and presume to judge her motives as you’ve done.
(And no, I’m not excusing her behavior)
@A Northern Observer
She is vague about what is happening here, but from her description this is as much about tingles as about penetration. She says she is in a “loveless” marriage. It is possible that she is asking for digital penetration, and he starts blubbering. It strikes me as far more likely though given her very callous letter that she started talking about how she can get her needs met now that he can’t do it for her, and he started blubbering. Either way, the blubbering isn’t a good move, but she is incredibly dismissive of her dying husband, and as I pointed out entirely unrepentant about her infidelity.
I can easily come up with a number of possible scenarios for why things are the way she writes them – she could easily be a cold-hearted bitch, or someone who’se lived with this condition for years and has had her fill of everything be about him and nothing about her.
What the truth is is anyone’s guess – and that’s why I objected when you wrote For what else could she mean.
The truth is – we don’t know, and short of a detailed investigation, we can’t know.
What we can state to a certainty is that the rationalization she uses to justify her “stepping out” certainly doesn’t cut the mustard.
Pingback: Why won’t he hurry up and die already | Honor Dads
OR maybe the poor husband is scared witless of his impending end, and simply is not in a position to counsel her on where else she can Get Jiggy. That happy topic just might be a bit upsetting to him, especially if he had been virile and fit previously, but due to weakness he can no longer service her. So yeah OK, that doesn’t make him the best candidate to be her therapist about “her needs”. If that’s what is meant by his “being selfish”, then in his shoes I’d be selfish too.
So what she should do is pay to see someone for the therapy, and for goodness sake, don’t go trolling on a site dedicated to known adulterers. Sheesh, I thought the women were all using Tinder anyway, while the men (mostly men) used AM.
The correct way for this woman to respond to her circumstance is to stay in close prayer and endure the circumstance faithfully. Oh what a faithful servant the Lord might see her as, tending to the sick at the cost of self-denial and self-discipline.
Unfortunately, she has her eyes on the world. Her fleshly needs, her coworkers and public shame concerns.
Her main concern now should not be tingles or sex, but rather an on-your-face repentance before God in abject contrition for her rebellion.
The Kingdom of God is at hand. This amazing reality has serious implications for those operating in it so poorly.
@A Northern Observer
Would you feel the same about a woman dying of cancer who blubbers when discussing sex and a man who frames himself as the victim while screwing around on his dying wife and wants her approval ?
Does she work for a Christian organization? I didn’t think that sort of morality clause (infidelity) was common in secular organizations.
Pingback: Why won’t he hurry up and die already? | Manosphere.com
@Minesweeper – my objection was to Dalrock’s “what else could it mean” in reference to the woman’s “challenges” in talking with her husband. That’s the beginning, middle, and end of my comment.
Beyond that – I’m not really interested in “what ifs”.
OP: “But as the fallout begins from this leak… it’s worth remembering that the reality is often far more complex than the smug moralizers suggest.”
I’m having flashbacks to the Lewinsky scandal. “Why does it matter if the President lied under oath about breaking his marriage vows? This investigation is hurting his reputation! It’ll prevent people from trusting him!”
…
A Northern Observer @ 2:59 pm:
“She could mean that he’s a narcissist looking at the end of his life, and doesn’t give a damn about anyone but himself.”
Why would a narcissist living on borrowed time NOT want to have sex if he was capable of the act?
http://therationalmale.com/2013/11/13/empathy/
Quoting Deti here:
“@Northern Observer says:
@Minesweeper – my objection was to Dalrock’s “what else could it mean” in reference to the woman’s “challenges” in talking with her husband. That’s the beginning, middle, and end of my comment.
Beyond that – I’m not really interested in “what ifs”.”
I didnt ask that. Try again.
@MS – I didnt ask that. Try again.
Let me check here – nope, no strings on me. No interest in pursuing that line of discussion either, so you go ahead and have a nice day. 🙂
@Dalrock
I was hoping I would see a “Ashley Madison” post from you…….And I would like to add…”A Canadian Company”…….””we cannot talk about my emotional or sexual needs without him fixating on his death and crying.””………It is all about her?….and he is the the one who is dying?…..WTF?….My advice to her. Buy yourself a vibrator…..and then when I am gone?….you can F*** whoever you want!
@A Northern Observer
What we know about this man is his cheating wife doesn’t have good things to say about him. What we know about her is she is an unrepentant cheater, who is quite free to disparage her sick (and she suggests dying) husband to strangers. She wrote this knowing white knights would come to her rescue, and you of course quickly mounted your steed once you saw she was being criticized.
Rollo is right on the money again. This is the usual Female Imperative at work, the “men are useful tools / animals” view: “He’s no good to me this way, why can’t I get rid of him?”. Naturally White Knight Greenwald rides to save the fair woman, because men are expendable and women are precious at the biological level, therefore defending women’s rights to behave as badly as they wish is a mangina imperative.
The Ashley Madison hack may prove to be a significant social event in time, as it seems likely to reveal more truths about women in a form that even manginae will find difficult to deny.
When a man cheats, it’s because he has some kind of character flaw. When a woman cheats, it’s because her man had some kind of character flaw.
Narcissists with cancer (and testicles) deserve whatever happens to them.
It’s been suggested by a few people that the hacker is a female ex-employee. One piece of evidence cited for such a position is that the female-dominated sites had no information leaked.
“Traditional” Christian Marriage
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/08/24/ashley_madison_hack_and_traditional_christian_marriage_theory_vs_practice.html
When Christian conservatives talk about “traditional” marriage, they often don’t just mean a man-woman marriage, but one in which each spouse has different and supposedly complementary roles. “Male and female were created by God as equal in dignity, value, essence and human nature,” explains the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, “but also distinct in role whereby the male was given the responsibility of loving authority over the female, and the female was to offer willing, glad-hearted and submissive assistance to the man.” In exchange for the wives’ submission, husbands take responsibility as moral leaders who look out for and protect their wives, a role commonly called “headship” in Christian-right circles.
The leak of user data for millions of subscribers to the cheating site Ashley Madison shows us what this call to male responsibility and protection can look like in practice.
It would be wrong to make her husband’s remaining time on earth more difficult by telling him and everyone else that his wife is cheating on him. Usually the husband needs to know, but I don’t see what good it will do him.
@Anon Reader
“”Rollo is right on the money again. This is the usual Female Imperative at work, the “men are useful tools / animals” view: “He’s no good to me this way, why can’t I get rid of him?”.””
Thanks for this post.In my above post where I stated that it is “”all about her””…..””he is the one dying””?……This is what I meant,and thank you for expanding on my comment! You and Rollo nailed it here!……”The Female Imperative At Work”!!!!!!!……..
This is exactly what marriage is dead. Oh, he has cancer, let me cheat on him and then act as the victim…
Seems like John Edwards could have written the same personal summary (minus the Ashley Madison connecction), though I don’t recall much sympathy for him.
@A Northern Observer
I find it incredibly offensive what she wrote about her sick husband. You accuse me of being presumptuous in being offended by this, complaining that I suggested that she has something other than good and pure motives for cheating on her husband. This is insane.
Yes I’m offended at what she wrote. Why aren’t you?
“However, the woman’s profound lack of repentance for her infidelity and empathy for her dying husband are astounding.”
Well, wait a minute. There’s nothing in the email to Greenwald that admits she cheated. It’s clear she at least INTENDED to cheat, even if she didn’t. She never full on admits to having had sex outside marriage.
There is lots and LOTS of lack of empathy, though.
She speaks of her marriage not only as “sexless”, but “loveless”. ( As in “he is sick and dying of cancer, therefore he doesn’t love me”.) She speaks of her marriage as “terrible”, “painful”, and of her marriage characterized as one of “alienation, lovelessness, and physical deprivation” and that she “manage[s] good will (with her husband) for the sake of the children”.
Whether she cheated or not, this woman is a horrible human being. She has no respect for her marriage vows, and is acting like a spoiled child.
@Dalrock – it’s pretty clear that we’re “missing” each other here.
Where I said you’re being presumptuous is not in your offence at her action – but at your inference “what else could she mean but…”
As someone who’se had to deal with a hypocondriatic “me me me” type person over an extended period of time I can relate to and sympathize with Cancer Wife’s frustration. However – “relate” and “sympathize” does not in any way, shape, or form lessen my disapproval of her stepping out, or improve my opinion of her attempts to justify what cannot be justified.
I have to step out for a while, and this is a tangent to your point, so what I’ll do is write something up later tonight (EDT) on my blog and link it to this.
I do, however, find it difficult to believe that a married woman forms the desire and intent to cheat, goes as far as signing up for a paid membership with a website to link up married women who want to cheat on their husbands; and then….
doesn’t go through with it. Odds are, she did cheat; she just didn’t say so in the email to Greenwald.
Even if she did cheat, she would never ever say so in an email or admit to it in anything other than euphemistic terms.
@ Dalrock
[quote]She is also very open about seeing her husband as a villain for not offering her a free pass to whore around while he is sick… [/quote]
The bits you quoted show no sign of the woman actually seeking financial gain for her extramarital sex, so I suppose it would be more accurate to say “slutting around”. It helps illustrate the underlying motivation is for her to have sex, rather than for her to make money.
Churchianity exposed for the farce that it is. Hypocrisy, now with MORE self-justification!!!!
When we are told in the Word to be sure that our sins would find us out, and the dangers of making lies our refuge I think these folks just ignored that part. Makes you wonder what all else they ignored, perhaps the voice of their Lord?
Wow, going several years without physical intimacy! Several! Who could possibly manage to do that?
It is sometimes useful to ascertain what one can about the person writing an article. I have looked into Greenwald: Greenwald is, according to Wiki, an LGBT Jew who was most outraged at the treatment by British immigration of his ‘partner’. He worked with Snowden who of course released documents damaging to the C.I.A. and to American national security. Now Greenwald is sympathetic to this hacked woman who has (as so often happens with Homo-queer men) outsourced her sexual requirements. Do I see a pattern? – or not?
@Opus
“”I have looked into Greenwald: Greenwald is, according to Wiki, an LGBT Jew who was most outraged at the treatment by British immigration of his ‘partner’. “”
Go Figure!!!!!!!
Northern Observer
As someone who’s had to deal with a hypocondriatic “me me me” type person over an extended period of time I can relate to and sympathize with Cancer Wife’s frustration.
In other words, you’re assuming as “true” facts that aren’t at all in evidence, because of your own personal experience.
In that case, you might want to consider the possibility that you are projecting your own circumstances onto someone else, packing a load of your own assumptions into the discussion in the process. Not all that different from what you accuse Dalrock of doing, by the way.
Good point about script-flipping, Minesweeper. Not necessary to direct it at NO. If the script were flipped, the man would be demonized.
@Dalrock – it’s pretty clear that we’re “missing” each other here.
Nope. Everyone got a good read on you pretty quickly. I would recommend putting the shovel down and sparing us the navel-gazing on what you “sympathize” with (hint: we already know the answer).
thedeti
Well, wait a minute. There’s nothing in the email to Greenwald that admits she cheated. It’s clear she at least INTENDED to cheat, even if she didn’t. She never full on admits to having had sex outside marriage.
Of course there is no overt admission of cheating. She’s a woman, with hidden estrus, smaller body mass than most men and therefore an inborn preference for indirection and plausible deniability. What evidence is there that she cheated, Deti? You answer in a subsequent comment:
I do, however, find it difficult to believe that a married woman forms the desire and intent to cheat, goes as far as signing up for a paid membership with a website to link up married women who want to cheat on their husbands; and then….
doesn’t go through with it. Odds are, she did cheat; she just didn’t say so in the email to Greenwald.
Exactly. If she hadn’t gone through with it, she wouldn’t have been writing to Greenwald in what appears to be a state of controlled panic.
@ deti
If he’s weak, no tingles for him. She just can’t get aroused. No blame, just biology. She still wants to be desired and admired and to get attention from hawt men. Standard female psychological desires.
Men marry “for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health”.
Women marry “for better and better, for richer and richer, in his good health–but her health can be good or bad.”
It’s how they think.
Children really are the only ones who benefit from monogamy. Women don’t, and men certainly don’t.
I give this woman a lot of credit for prioritizing her children and husband over herself. Some wives just give up and leave everybody in such situations. She also shows empathy by no longer bringing up a traumatizing subject to her husband. She did the best she could given the circumstances. Picturing myself in a similar situation I have to admit I might just have left. A spouse that sick needs to reciprocate the empathy and be the first to broach the subject and allow the other to get his or her needs met elsewhere.
“I went on AM out of loneliness and despair, and found friendship, both male and female”
“I have met some very decent people on AM, some of whom are now dear friends”
On a hookup site : friends = lovers.
What she is really scared of is being outed as a bisexual. A woman who generally has a terminally sick husband with cancer, will in all fairness get a free pass for the odd extra curricular activity to ease the pain, grief and anguish of his passing (this has been seen before).
Im sure Rollo or CH has an article of the flexibility of female sexuality under long term stress or loneliness.
@Mark
‘Go figure’ is a trans-atlantic expression which I have some difficulty understanding, and I am not sure I understand where Greenwald is coming from either. British Immigration arrested Greenwald’s boyfriend because he was attempting to bring into England (this was Heathrow Airport – London) a disc with fifty-four thousand (sensitive?) files thereon. Greenwald is also a lawyer and so was most upset and probably threatened H.M. Customs and Excise with a writ of Habeus Corpus – not much point as those chaps don’t speak Latin. The boyfriend is called Miranda – that’s his surname – and he is a tall handsome Indian – so pretty much what I imagine TFH to look like (but it is not he).
Greenwald (formerly of The Salon) now writes for The Guardian.
@Micky, she is prob staying due to her job and then the kids.
“I give this woman a lot of credit for prioritizing her children and husband over herself.”
I don’t. Because she didn’t prioritize her children and husband over herself. She prioritized herself over her husband and kids. She acted exceedingly selfishly. She wasn’t reckless; she gambled she’d never be outed based on calculated risks. She lost that gamble.
She knew what could happen if she were outed, and she went ahead and did it anyway, for her own purposes (not for those of her husband, her marriage, or her family). She signed up for membership with a cheaters website thinking she would never be outed. She did it knowing she was likely breaching her employment morals clauses. And it’s very likely she did cheat, because a halfway decently attractive woman can easily find some man, somewhere, who is willing to have sex with her.
It seems odd that any halfway decently attractive woman would need to go on a website to find men willing to cheat with her.
She can’t go to the next town over to a high end bar? She can’t get on facebook and look up her old college flames? It is SO INCREDIBLY EASY for a woman to get sex. Women do not need to go on websites to find potential sex partners.
Children really are the only ones who benefit from monogamy. Women don’t, and men certainly don’t.
Women post 35 or post “wall” certainly do benefit from monogamy. Pre-civilized society, such women would have been kicked to the curb or put to pasture. Feminism ensures things will be heading back in that direction.
“I don’t. Because she didn’t prioritize her children and husband over herself. She prioritized herself over her husband and kids. She acted exceedingly selfishly. ”
Her husband is the selfish one. “Mine is a loveless, sexless, parenting marriage. I will care for my husband if his cancer spreads, we manage good will for the sake of the children, but we cannot talk about my emotional or sexual needs without him fixating on his death and crying.”
If I ever get married, shoot me. But failing that if I ever get married, terminally ill and unable to have sex with my wife, I will talk about it and the two of us will come to an agreement.
“A woman who generally has a terminally sick husband with cancer, will in all fairness get a free pass for the odd extra curricular activity to ease the pain, grief and anguish of his passing (this has been seen before).”
Its only normal.
Greenwald is a homosexual, so of course he realizes importance of monogamy.
Also:
–Makes a name exposing Snowden leaks
–Writes about how Ashley Madison leaks are no one’s business
It’s SO COMPLICATED! Who are we to judge??
Yes I’m offended at what she wrote. Why aren’t you?
That initial post by N.O. doesn’t read like anything else I’ve ever seen him write. Maybe his account got hacked?
“Her husband is the selfish one. “Mine is a loveless, sexless, parenting marriage. I will care for my husband if his cancer spreads, we manage good will for the sake of the children, but we cannot talk about my emotional or sexual needs without him fixating on his death and crying.””
Nah. Marriage is a lifelong agreement to be there to the end. Everyone who marries knows that is (or should be) part of the deal; else it isn’t “marriage”. You aren’t willing to do that; don’t sign up.
The man is sick. It’s HIS emotional and sexual needs they should be focusing on; but she’s so blinded by her own selfishness she can’t or won’t do that.
It’s a bitch and a half. It really is. But them’s the breaks. Marriage is hard, sometimes crushingly hard. People know (or should know) that going in. You don’t marry thinking it’s going to be rainbows and unicorns; you marry KNOWING it could be very, VERY hard sometimes.
Or at least you used to.
I have a post tomorrow coming about Joss Whedon’s odd feminism and his show firefly, wherein he paints the whore (she is actually a prostitute) as some kind hero and dignitary to be lauded, but every client of hers is portrayed as a wicked evil villain.
This is like the real life version of just that situation. She’s in command of her sexuality and she’s so powerful and amazing, and her jerk asshole of a husband was selfish enough to go get cancer. What a chode.
This is what modern feminism has done with society.
“It seems odd that any halfway decently attractive woman would need to go on a website to find men willing to cheat with her.
She can’t go to the next town over to a high end bar? She can’t get on facebook and look up her old college flames? It is SO INCREDIBLY EASY for a woman to get sex. Women do not need to go on websites to find potential sex partners.”
Her marriage isn’t just sexless, she said its loveless also. She’d be looking for some empathy, friendship, a shoulder to cry on in addition to sex.
“you marry KNOWING it could be very, VERY hard sometimes.
Or at least you used to.”
Who used to? You really think stepping out is a new thing? You think this lady’s the first with a sick spouse to do that? People have been doing it since the invention of marriage.
As I’ve stated in a few of my recent posts, Hypergamy is always pragmatic. It psychologically demands assurances of security (sexual and provisional) optimization. When a man empirically confirms for a woman he can provide neither, Hypergamy compels her to seek better options.
That compulsion conflicts with social and emotional commitments, but only so far as they outweigh her immediate capacity to generate (attract) a better option. Ashley Madison is all about (the perception of) options.
At the functional level, a Marriage ends in either Death or Divorce. There is no other options. So this Woman’s Carousel Watcher nature is definitely in full force. On the assumption that most of the things she wrote is roughly true.
The one thing that seems to be assumed is that she is telling the truth about the cancer treatments killing the sex in the marriage. (They can put a huge damper on the issue, but outright killing it? That’s unlikely. Plus, Chemo rounds aren’t a constant thing.) I would bet good money that isn’t true. Child #3 was probably her “personal limit” and that’s most likely when the sex stopped. The cancer likely just seems like a highly rationalized excuse because, as noted up thread, she is likely bisexual. Which means she’s way, WAY into the weeds of personal issues. But she hides it well from those around her.
Who used to? You really think stepping out is a new thing? You think this lady’s the first with a sick spouse to do that? People have been doing it since the invention of marriage.
And it’s always been viewed as immoral as well. This woman had a morality clause in her employment contract and says that she had previously written about marriage law policy and promoted traditional marriage. She is clearly either an academic at a conservative Christian college, or someone in some kind of conservative think tank. So she knows the morality of what she is doing. She is, unfortunately, being the typical woman — moral rules are fine for others, but when it comes to women, it all slides into context and motive and all of that crap which women use to weasel out of moral rules that do not suit them in the moment. It is deeply, profoundly hypocritical, and also deeply immoral.
Does it suck to be married to someone who can’t physically have sex with you? Yes, it does. But you don’t step out on someone because of that — that is immoral, she knows it’s immoral, and she’s dissembling based on her feelz and context. Newsflash: all moral rules are hard to keep when you are in a situation which forces the issue in a way that complying with them is very difficult for you personally. All of them. Yet anyone who has a morality clause in her employment contract knows that well enough.
She’s just scared shitless that she’s going to be run out of her job because she is a moral hypocrite, and she may be right to be scared. That’s what’s going on here more than anything else. The rest is misdirection and dissembling.
I think the Robolove section is relevant to this topic .
“Here’s an idea. Suppose people still get married, but only for economic and reproductive purposes, the latter via artificial insemination. Each spouse uses these artificial constructs for love and sex while the marriage itself becomes purely a business arrangement.”
Dalrock talks there about romantic love as the new moral virtue. So which one is moral? Marrying and having duty sex with a person you don’t love, or having loving enthusiastic sex with someone you are not married to?
“And it’s always been viewed as immoral as well.”
But silently tolerated and covered up.
“Does it suck to be married to someone who can’t physically have sex with you? Yes, it does. But you don’t step out on someone because of that — that is immoral,”
Would it be more moral to broach the topic with him as she has tried previously to leave him only depressed, crying and contemplating his death as she said he does? Would it be more moral if she would have told him she was going to get her needs met elsewhere before she did so? Would it be more moral if they both discussed and agreed to that? Or if he told from the beginning that she could?
This is an important question. What obligation does a terminally ill spouse have in such a situation?
theasdgamer
Good point about script-flipping, Minesweeper. Not necessary to direct it at NO. If the script were flipped, the man would be demonized.
Yeah, my first thought upon reading this article was, ‘Flip the sexes and see how much sympathy a man would get for cheating on his sick, dying wife.’
In fact, this scenario reminds me of an episode of Politically Incorrect in which Bill Maher read from a magazine, which talked about a man who had left his wife “while she was struggling with alcoholism and an eating disorder.” After reading that part aloud, Maher paused and then said, “Now, let me read that again. ‘Her husband left her while she was struggling alcoholism and an eating disorder.’ If it had been a man, they would have said, ‘He was a drunk! He was a slob!…'” I haven’t always agreed with Maher, but he has been right on sometimes, particularly when pointing out certain double-standards and inconsistencies by society.
Mickey is delusional.
Her marriage isn’t just sexless, she said its loveless also.
Well, she doesn’t love her husband anymore, because he’s weak. And she shows him. For years. And–shock–he no longer loves her either.
Try to get both your neurons firing, Ok?
Would it be more moral to broach the topic with him as she has tried previously to leave him only depressed, crying and contemplating his death as she said he does? Would it be more moral if she would have told him she was going to get her needs met elsewhere before she did so? Would it be more moral if they both discussed and agreed to that? Or if he told from the beginning that she could?
It’s morally black and white, at least for a Christian (Dalrock is one, and so am I). Adultery is a sin, period, black and white. It is no more or less moral to discuss it, propose it, negotiate it, be open about it, be hidden about it — the act is objectively immoral, full stop. If you do not agree with that premise, then you’re going to get lots of disagreement here, because many guys here, like the host, are Christian.
What obligation does a terminally ill spouse have in such a situation?
Certainly not to be narcissistic, and to bear his burdens and difficulty with as much grace as he can muster. This does not extend to “consenting” to his wife’s adultery. Consent to adultery is irrelevant to the morality of the act, from a Christian perspective (and it’s almost certain she is a Christian based on what is written in the article) — the act is objectively immoral, whether it’s consented to or not.
thedeti
She can’t go to the next town over to a high end bar? She can’t get on facebook and look up her old college flames?
Maybe she did.
Pingback: Why won’t he hurry up and die already? | Reaction Times
“It would be wrong to make her husband’s remaining time on earth more difficult by telling him and everyone else that his wife is cheating on him. Usually the husband needs to know, but I don’t see what good it will do him.”
I disagree. I believe he has a right to know exactly what his wife has been doing behind his back. Yes, being informed would increase his emotional pain. Being informed would afford him some dignity as a man should know what his wife is doing in this regard. Affording him this dignity, even with his current circumstance, would be the respectful thing to do for him or any husband. I suspect he would prefer to be respected while feeling an increase of emotional pain, then to be kept in the dark.
Micky Singh
Her husband is the selfish one.
How do you know?
“Mine is a loveless, sexless, parenting marriage. I will care for my husband if his cancer spreads, we manage good will for the sake of the children, but we cannot talk about my emotional or sexual needs without him fixating on his death and crying.”
Oh, because she said so, eh? You are aware that women sometimes don’t tell the truth, or the whole truth, or any truth? This woman is clearly quite scared that she will be revealed. Under that circumstance, rationalization is a given.
All we know about her husband is what she tells us. That might not be the whole story.
Let’s not start licking her self sacrificing stink hole yet. First off he is disable with a stack of medical bills. No money in a divorce for her. He can at least be a day care for the children and a tax write off for her income.
She said sexless and loveless that right off the bat say she is a piece of shit period. Knowing my women think of any wicked selfish reason for her to stay married and that is it. The rest of that for the kids shit is so as Dalrock stated to get some sap white knight to come to her recue and graciously kill her husband for her. Women do not care anything about children that involves a sexless and loveless marriage. The most value a child has to their mother is the title of mother and the insulation from responsibility and the entitlement to resources. keep it simple and the route cause is there to be seen.
PS She has been at this for years. The letter sounds new because the leak is new. She also doesn’t have serious conversations with the husband she doesn’t need to. She is describing a conversation she had years ago.
“Yeah, my first thought upon reading this article was, ‘Flip the sexes and see how much sympathy a man would get for cheating on his sick, dying wife.”
I did flip it. I pictured myself in the situation and I can tell you without a doubt I would seek out someone else if my wife were terminally ill and unable to have sex. In my culture empathy is extended to men who do so. The wife would silently accept, she might even empathize.
I wouldn’t want to touch this one for anything. I looked for my own wife’s email on the hacked AM database. Unfortunately I didn’t find it.
What you’re describing isn’t exactly cheating (as in sneaking around), though, Mickey Singh. However, I do believe it’s immoral, but the morality of it notwithstanding, what you’re describing is what’s referred to as “open marriage,” since both parties are aware of what’s going on. Also, while you may at least be consistent on the subject, meaning you’d grant sympathy to either sex in the aforementioned scenario, many others, particularly in the US, would not.
Pingback: If we do not call it sin we cannot repent. | Dark Brightness
Proverbs 30:20
This is the way of the adulterous woman: she eats and wipes her mouth and says, “I have done no wrong”
Lets be fair here – not everyone who has a busy profile on the Ashley M. site are bad people, some of them have a vag. And THAT is the real determining factor of course. Men on the site are all horrible leches, seeking to date innocent children while befouling the marriage bed and breaking up their families leaving the kind, sweet, virtuous, doting, loving, helpless wife alone in her sorrow with 12 of his kids to feed. And 3 of his kids are special needs and she’s also a nun who gives blood twice a day and rescues baskets of kittens from burning buildings at least twice per week.
Women on the site however are all tender waifs trapped in loveless marriages to horrible men who beat them, mistreat them, insult them, and steal toys from the cereal boxes of homeless children. What about MAN: BAD, WOMAN: GOOD is exactly new here? Men are evil so anything a woman does that may harm one is moral regardless of what religion (if any) is in play. Women are good so anything a man does to one is by definition evil unless its handing her money under pain of prison then he is at least making up for his original sin of having a penis.
This idiot cherry picked a woman looking for an angle to (drum roll please) make women look good because anything less than this is basically illegal and certainly immoral in our society regardless of the actions of the woman. What did Jesus say about those who label good for evil and evil for good? White Knights certainly do have a shiny clean outer part of the cup don’t they?
” I believe he has a right to know exactly what his wife has been doing behind his back. Yes, being informed would increase his emotional pain.” And his cancer. Stress depletes immune response.
Pingback: Dalrock, wrong again.. | See, there's this thing called biology...
“What you’re describing isn’t exactly cheating (as in sneaking around), though, Mickey Singh. However, I do believe it’s immoral, but the morality of it notwithstanding, what you’re describing is what’s referred to as “open marriage,” since both parties are aware of what’s going on. ”
Open marriage you say? Isn’t that where both parties “communicate” and agree they will see other people? I’m referring to a spouse quietly stepping out without talking about it at all. The other party may suspect but keeps silent.
” I looked for my own wife’s email on the hacked AM database. Unfortunately I didn’t find it.”
Why unfortunately? You want her to be on there?
I would suggest that her motives don’t matter. Even if he is a whining, mewling bitch who faces death like a rank coward, she made a vow and is self-righteously flailing at everyone who might call her out on not honoring it. She is perfectly free to regard him as a pathetic excuse of a man if he truly is so self-absorbed that he cannot help but turn everything into a waterworks about him and his mortality. She is not free to run around and fuck other men.
“If he is unable to perform sexually, no amount of discussion will change that. What she clearly wants is his blessing to do what she did, but he is too selfish to give her this.”
This is what I don’t get. If he knows his wife is suffering due to “alienation, lovelessness, and physical deprivation” then why doesn’t he give his blessing? I would. I would expect anyone who claimed to love me to do the same.
Holy crap. I can’t believe there is any argument about this at all. The woman’s husband is dying of cancer, and she’s complaining about how she can’t get laid? Again, when John Edwards did it, was there a national outpouring of sympathy? Does any of this sh*t mean anything to anybody?
http://www.humansofnewyork.com/post/126108813191/shortly-after-we-were-married-i-got-tuberculosis
I agree with the goal of adding some moral complexity to this whole issue. I don’t think we should rush to judge people on this site. But the idea that holding up this case was a great way to do that just shows the moral double standard we apply.
Mickey Singh @ 8:10 pm:
“This is what I don’t get. If he knows his wife is suffering due to “alienation, lovelessness, and physical deprivation” then why doesn’t he give his blessing? I would.”
In a Christian marriage, he is not permitted to do that. Sex within marriage or not at all. No wiggle room.
Marriage is sacred in Christianity. It represents the relationship between Christ and humanity. It is not merely the satisfaction of bodily urges. Allowing adultery in a human marriage is analogous to serving Christ when He’s convenient and serving the devil when Christ is not convenient.
So, no extramarital sex in Christian marriage. Doesn’t matter if both parties are okay with it; we must represent Christ by the way we live.
…
Mickey Singh @ 5:10 pm:
“Children really are the only ones who benefit from monogamy. Women don’t, and men certainly don’t.”
Women gain lifetime provision and a devoted protector. Men gain a loyal servant and plentiful, disease-free sex. The theory is sound.
It still drives me nuts that women don’t want (or even understand) what a good deal monogamy is. She marries young, spends her twenties investing heavily in her husband’s happiness & success then spends the rest of her life doting on kids and painting toenails with the girls. Why is this hard? She’ll be cleaning toilets and cooking meals whether she marries or not so the only “costs” of a husband are following his rules and the daily frisky.
And then we read stories of women like this one who, at best, resents her ailing husband and is thinking of cheating on him during one of the lowest parts of his life.
Mickey Singh = Insanity Bytes.
Move on troll.
Mickey Singh is probably the woman in the article
AM is about getting laid. Most cases are married guys/chicks, who want some excitement in their sex again, but do not want to lose their marriage. Selfish? Yes. Trying to trade up? Nope.
It’s just sex for most of them.
Infidelity justified due to cancer treatment? Senator John Edwards was in the same situation, and the Press didn’t spare him at all. He was labelled a cad and his political ascendency stopped.
She is being deliberately deceptive: She says she hasn’t been intimate for “several years”. How? Cancer treatments don’t last several years continuously. They can’t because the patient needs to recover, often goes into remission and has periods cancer-free. It seems that she’s closed the candy shop and retro rationalised a reason. So too, her last paragraph, where she wishes she “Had a good one”, referring to her husband. What makes him bad, and her “trapped”? His suffering cancer!
This woman implies she is employed by a Christian institution. If so, she has actually rationalizing that pesky Commandment – you know, the one about Adultery.
If only they were the Ten Suggestions For Better Living…..
.
If she works for a Christian organization that explains the “for the sake of the kids ” bullshit. She is maintaining her status (and job BTW) as a Christian woman.
“In a Christian marriage, he is not permitted to do that. Sex within marriage or not at all. No wiggle room.
Marriage is sacred in Christianity. It represents the relationship between Christ and humanity. It is not merely the satisfaction of bodily urges. Allowing adultery in a human marriage is analogous to serving Christ when He’s convenient and serving the devil when Christ is not convenient.
So, no extramarital sex in Christian marriage. Doesn’t matter if both parties are okay with it; we must represent Christ by the way we live.”
OK gunnerq but Christ was willing to sacrifice his life because he loved so deeply and a spouse can’t even sacrifice his or her own ego or jealousy out of love for a suffering spouse? I don’t get it. If I had a wife who was suffering due to me not being able to have sex with her, out of love and compassion I would swallow my pride, my hurt, my anything and say, “Honey you deserve to have your sexual needs met.”
Mickey Singh confirmed as wimminz or male feminist.
If you flip the script and the guy does it on his sick wife he is crucified. Nobody has mentioned Newt Gingrich on this thread- the guy who could have been President had he not had such low female vote numbers due to his divorcing his wife with cancer.
Except as was pointed out upthread, I just bet the sex didn’t stop at the cancer unless it was on life support well before that- probably after the kids were born.
So..if you flip the script and a guy does it, I can condemn the sin but can I really blame him? Can we blame her? Really? This is Red Pill Female Psychology 101 and a giant AWALT. Men expect their women to be faithful and supportive when you are dying of cancer?
LOLOLOOLOOOLLLZZZZZZ.
I used to think that but no longer. Some of y’all need to still take the Red Pill.
@TheDeti: Please tell me it was you I sent my book. Thanks.
As painful a topic this is, I think it’s important because it highlights that a sexless marriage is not an excuse for the deprived partner to have an affair.
It’s interesting to me, because, in discussing 1 Corinthians 7 with friends in the past, they had raised the hypothetical situation of a wife undergoing treatment for cancer who really does not feel up to sex. “Is she sinning to deny her husband?” they asked me.
I said I thought the Bible was pretty clear that spouses should never deny each other, but that you would hope an understanding husband would take into account the wife’s condition in that situation.
I feel sorry for this woman’s husband, that his wife was not more understanding of his situation. Of course a sexless marriage is not the ideal, but her actions have now done (or will do) far more damage than simply a lack of sex.
“If you flip the script and the guy does it on his sick wife he is crucified.”
He’s not crucified if nobody finds out. And that’s how this lady intended it.
“Nobody has mentioned Newt Gingrich on this thread- the guy who could have been President had he not had such low female vote numbers due to his divorcing his wife with cancer.”
Why should he divorce her? If she was unable to fulfill her wifely duty of sex then he could have simply, quietly gotten that need met or he could have discussed it with her and if she was loving and compassionate she would have given her blessing. These things can be worked out without having to divorce and abandon a sick spouse and the lady above tried to work it out. Give her credit for that at least.
a spouse who selfishly seeks hedonistic pleasure with indifference toward his or her own marital vows and by deceiving the spouse
Pretty much describes every human being that I’ve ever interacted with – especially women who like to pretend to be something other then what they are, and make excuses for being the lying little whores they are.
Now don’t get me wrong – I love the fact that women are lying whores, my weekends wouldn’t be nearly as much fun if they weren’t. But this type of justification for being a slut makes me laugh. If you are going to do it – take pride in it. Of course, that is why women always want to be able to reserve the right to cry “rape” – especially when the truth comes out. That is why so many women are screaming about the Ashley Madison hack – can’t really cry “rape” when you are advertising that you’re a slutty little whore can you? Of course, I call most of the women I see “my slutty little whore” and they enjoy it – mostly because when they are with me, they can be themselves rather than pretending to be something they aren’t. Of course, they only like to have that mask ripped away – when they are getting it hard the way they like it.
I find this post hilarious – mostly because women always justify their actions. She’s PO’ed at hubby so lets you bare-back her – it’s his fault. Everything is always his fault! Women are always the victim – in their eyes no matter what they do. Just accept it and enjoy it – and as long as you are never “him” you’ll have a great time in life… Of course, you won’t find my name on that site – but then, I like seeing what I’m getting in real life before I decide to take it to bed. But then, I’ve always been choosy – just not about a woman’s morals – her looks are most important to me, well, that and the fact that she is available to me. (All women are available – just not to every man.) And I learned long ago, no woman has morals – it’s all a performance. Women like to pretend to be something they aren’t, and hate it when someone shines the light on them when they are bent over with their dress up around their waists… But I love them for it – it’s just that I’ve never been fooled by any woman.
Men have a code by which they live – you may not understand it, but it is the code they live by – women are more “fluid” in how they live, consistency is not their strong point. So as long as you enjoy them for what they are, you’ll do well.
@Remo. i lol’d, beautifully put.
Just Saying – I think women are great at compartmentalizing their lives. They are like a bank of filing cabinets. The love of kids in this drawer, the love of hubby in this drawer, the love of the AM partner in this drawer.
As you say, they are far more fluid. Recent studies are showing that women can multi task better then men, again, filing cabinet mind. And if you open a drawer that is not for your eyes, yup, the shit storm appears.
Is this bad? nope, just different wiring then males.
Wow this one hit pretty close to home for me. It feels like my ex-sister-in-law wrote it.
As for AM, it seems that the true ratio of men to women is supposed to be 28 million men to 5 million women. Hmmm, since it has been established that wives now cheat as much as men, this seems a bit off.
” I think women are great at compartmentalizing their lives. ”
I always heard men are better at that and that’s why they can have affairs without ruining a marriage (its just sex) whereas a woman, who integrates the various spheres of her life, ruins a marriage by an affair because she can’t file it away in the “just sex” drawer.
BPP: Yeah you sent your book to me. Couple of months ago.
Mickey Singh,
Nobody here cares what you think – you’re just another hedonistic windbag coming here to set all of us “benighted Christians” straight. You will succeed in nothing more that continuing to get your head handed to you like you have so far. Moral truth is neither subject to majority vote nor constrained to idiotic talking points or your appeals to false morality disguised as pragmatism.
One of the differences between people like us and people like you is that, since your immoral and unrealistic views are currently in vogue, you rarely encounter anyone who wishes to challenge them. We, on the other hand, get challenged all the time. Consequently, you’re just arguing against the “Simple-minded Christian Straw Men” that exist only in your head, and you understand nothing of what we’re talking about… whereas we can read you like a cheap novel because we’ve seen where your view leads, and because we’ve been lectured to by unoriginal and tedious “True Believers” like you from the day we were born.
You know nothing… less than nothing, really, because most of what you think you know is wrong.
Hey dalrockas!!!
73.2% of all the hacked ashley madison messges were sent to da GBFM!!!
most form womenz too!!
but do not worryez–if your hsunbands hadz cancer, da gbfm did not go there but rather said a prayer for da husbandz
lzozozozozo
Well Lyn87 I don’t see why you’re being rude and picking on me. I’ve not been that way with you here. “One of the differences between people like us and people like you is that, since your immoral and unrealistic views are currently in vogue”. They may be immoral according to you or your religion but it certainly is not unrealistic to accept the fact that a terminally ill spouse who cannot provide sex can and often does pose a very serious problem in a marriage and that terminally ill spouse has an obligation to take his or her spouse’s needs into consideration too. It has nothing to do with “true believing” (that would be your department), just common sense and dare I say common courtesy.
Mickey,
I’m not being rude to you – that is how men speak to each other, especially when one man is spouting nonsense and throwing out one canard after another. You are entitled to believe whatever you like, but anything that runs contrary to Christianity is unrealistic by its very nature, as you will discover in this life or the next. You can rail against that all you like, but it won’t change anything.
Here ya go Mick –
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1211104/Think-men-unfaithful-sex-A-study-shows-WOMEN-biggest-cheats–theyre-just-better-lying-it.html
Just went to Insanity Bitten. Sheesh.
Mickey, if that is you: fair warning… if it was a slow week your site would be good fuel for fisking. But it is a busy week: Ashley Madison falling over is not the main collapsed thing right now (That would be the Chinese Communist party and their nameless minions in the US Fed).
“anything that runs contrary to Christianity is unrealistic by its very nature, as you will discover in this life or the next. ”
Okay!
How? Cancer treatments don’t last several years continuously. They can’t because the patient needs to recover, often goes into remission and has periods cancer-free.
Actually, this man’s cancer was probably in remission, or at least well managed, and localized. In her own words:
I will care for my husband if his cancer spreads,…
This clearly showed that the man’s cancer had not spread, that it was probably in remission, and well managed.
She made a vow to her husband – which she broke.
She signed a contract with a morality clause – which she broke
She also use to write about marriage law policy, encouraging traditional marriage for the good of children which requires trust – which she broke and makes her a hypocrite.
She now wants to switch sides because her experiences have led her to soften her views of marriage as her own marriage is a deeply humbling, painful long term commitment – which makes her fickle because she broke her commitment and if caught out will longer have her ‘moral high ground’.
When her outing happens, she thinks of taking a stand for those who are trapped in bad marriages – which will put her in conflict with God as He is the third party to those marriage covenants and she will merely be an interloper.
Also pay attention to the following “*When my outing happens*, I suppose I might as well take a stand for those who are trapped in bad marriages.” She says that she will only fight her new good fight when she is caught out.
It’s called Outing, isn’t it: the Gay Lobby (Peter Tatchell and his dog) were keen to out men who were publicly Homophobic, whilst privately indulging. There does seem to be a fairness and logic to that and yet I also suspected that there was a viciousness about it that left me somewhat uneasy. People do not always live up to their own standards or even the standards they feel compelled to adopt.
People have their ‘moments of madness’: people like Secretary of State for the Principality Ron Davies who was mugged at knifepoint on Clapham Common but there was only one reason he was on the common. He resigned from the government and was said to be seeking treatment – not for his homo-queer inclinations but for an alleged personality disorder which led him to seek out risky situations (i.e. sex with strangers in the semi-public confines of Clapham Common). Really, he should have gone to Hampstead Heath, where there is more space, thus privacy and where one might easily find that ones latest sexual partner is none other than Wham front-man George Michael. These days The Police police The Heath to ensure safety to the men – thus killing that risk-tingle that Ron so enjoyed.
Most of the account holders at Ashley Madison (which I had previously assumed was a shop like floral-patterned Laura Ashley even assuming that I had ever heard of it) were men – so brimming with self-righteousness my name and details are not to be found amongst the leaked. This hand-wringing about outing goes back as far as the Dirk Bogarde movie Victim (1961), where Bogarde played a Barrister about to take silk but who has been having sex with a young lad un-benowknst to his wife (played by Sylvia Sims – I always found her so hot though tragically now she looks like a bag-lady). Actually (if you read my Amazon review) you will see that it is not really about Homosexuality but Pederasty – but the gay lobby gloss over that. They say it led to the change in the law in 1967 reversing the banning of Homosexuality under the 1885 Criminal Justice Act – but even today men are committing suicide when outed for sexual indiscretion relating to that part of that earlier act which has not been repealed – the raising of the age of consent from thirteen.
Ashley Madison is the latest wedge towards the normalisation of Open Marriage i.e. the acceptance of cuckoldry – and that is what Greenwald, using this female penned E-Mail is, I would say, really pushing for. More AF:BB.
Opus,
I cannot recall ever having seen Sylvia Sims before, but I looked up her pictures at your mention of her. You are right, Sir,.. she has quite the hottie in her late teens and early 20’s, but after that she didn’t hit the wall: the wall hit her! It looks like she developed a scones-and-clotted-cream addiction early in life that vastly outstripped her metabolism.
no9,
Good point about the letter-writing adulteress: she intends to continue her career as if she’s as pure as the driven snow until she gets fired: at which point she will immediately begin lobbying against her current position. Wow. If she has truly had a change of heart that allows her to think that adultery is okay, she ought to resign NOW and take up the cause she says she embraces today. (Of course in the US, being fired means that you get to collect unemployment, while you do not get that money if you quit). I suspect that she’s hoping that she does not, in fact, get caught, and will continue to live her double life as pro-marriage in public and dirty whore in private.
Let this be a man and the tides will be turned as the sickly woman as a victim.
This case here is played out too much. A sin is a sin and if she is about to be expose then that is her own fault.
As you correctly surmised, there is no need to speculate at all, sonofdeathswriter:
The same Glen Greenwald who said that it is impossible to judge the adulteress who wrote the letter had no trouble at all heaping scorn on the man when the scenario was reversed. In fact, the two cases are nearly mirror-images of each other. In the 2006 case a prominent “family-values” politician dumped his cancer-stricken wife. The difference is that the male politician was Newt Gingrich, and Glen Greenwald is a lib-tard. This is what Greenwald said before his current insistence that adultery cannot ever be condemned because we cannot possibly know all the salient details:
Mickey Singh
Open marriage you say? Isn’t that where both parties “communicate” and agree they will see other people? I’m referring to a spouse quietly stepping out without talking about it at all. The other party may suspect but keeps silent.
I see. Well, I have to wonder if the marriage vows in your country include the phrase “in sickness and in health” or some equivalent of it and exactly what it means to someone when they say it there. In the US, marriage vows usually mean one is not free to have sex with other people. I assume it’s the same in Canada, since Ashley Madison is a Canadian website and is used to help people sneak around and hide what they’re doing from their spouses. At least, it used to be.
@justsaying
“Women are always the victim.”
One of the hardest plain truths about women that once learned, can’t be unlearned. The men who think that this is no big deal or some endearing glitch in female hardwiring have never been in a realationship with a woman that has done something seriously wrong. It’s impossible to forgive someone when they will never accept responsibility for doing anything wrong. The more clever ones may mouth “I’m sorrys” to mitigate official punishment, but all (yes, ALL) of them know deep in their hearts that what they did was not really their own fault.
Your favorite groupie has responded to this post, Dalrock. Typical response, unfortunately, but also unsurprisingly.
If I had a wife who was suffering due to me not being able to have sex with her, out of love and compassion I would swallow my pride, my hurt, my anything and say, “Honey you deserve to have your sexual needs met.”
And you would be committing a grave, grave sin by doing so, because you would be encouraging and advising her to commit a grave sin, which makes you a participant in that same sin. It’s exactly the opposite of what Christian husbandry is about — but I take it you are not Christian, so the discussion is kind of pointless.
So..if you flip the script and a guy does it, I can condemn the sin but can I really blame him? Can we blame her? Really? This is Red Pill Female Psychology 101 and a giant AWALT. Men expect their women to be faithful and supportive when you are dying of cancer?
LOLOLOOLOOOLLLZZZZZZ.
I used to think that but no longer. Some of y’all need to still take the Red Pill.
No.
Serious Christians who are involved with the red pill ideas will clearly place a hierarchical emphasis on moral behavior, in terms of “what takes precedence”. The red pill is not an excuse for immorality. It greatly helps to explain the dynamics that lead to temptation to sin, and to sin in fruition, which helps one avoid sin, and helps one to help others to avoid sin (i.e., one’s wife). But it doesn’t justify immoral acts just because they are based on human psychology. Human psychology is itself fallen, and will be subject to all kinds of disordered desires and passions. The red pill is like a map to these so that we understand them better, in particular as they manifest in our current surroundings, and can therefore manage better living with other fallen humans in the present day. It does not, however, justify immoral acts, either by ourselves or by those around us. It recognizes the temptations to these acts which are created by the detailed view TRP paints of fallen human psychology and sexuality, but Christian red pill men can never accept immoral acts of themselves or others which arises from this fallen-ness.
As for AM, it seems that the true ratio of men to women is supposed to be 28 million men to 5 million women. Hmmm, since it has been established that wives now cheat as much as men, this seems a bit off.
It’s because women don’t need AM to find a cheat partner, basically. Most women can easily find a cheat partner at work, and the ones who don’t want to do that for risk management reasons can more easily find one on Tinder, which is very female friendly in how it functions.
Women tend to be much better at sublimation than men. That’s a fancy word that entails channeling the libido into other things. Basically, many women “cheat” through non-sexual friendzone relationships, sexting, fighting (he hit me and it felt like a kiss, lol), drama and other emotional nonsense.
The evolutionary reasons for this are beyond the scope of the original article, but are covered fairly well in Simon Sheppard’s work.
These people don’t exist except as literary characters in a sordid, poorly-written net drama. It’s bullshit designed to boost page views.
If a normal man is married to a normal woman and she wants sex, and his dick doesn’t work (temporarily or permanently), then it seems obvious that he’d use fingers, tongue, sex toys, etc. He wouldn’t simply say “no” for years on end.
Greenwald wrote a ridiculous story that makes absolutely no sense, except as a lame effort to excuse women who are stepping out on perfectly good sex partners they simply got bored with.
Did anyone else hear Kenny Rogers singing “Ruby, don’t take your love to town” while reading this post?
“Many of us are doing the best we can, trying in our own imperfect way to cope with alienation, lovelessness, and physical deprivation.”
It’s the fault of people such as yourself, specifically woman kind aggregately, that marriage 2.0 isn’t what it’s cracked up to be. Or did you vows not include till death do us part?
“As I argued last week, even for the most simplistic, worst-case-scenario, cartoon-villain depictions of the Ashley Madison user — a spouse who selfishly seeks hedonistic pleasure with indifference toward his or her own marital vows and by deceiving the spouse — that’s nobody’s business other than those who are parties to that marriage or, perhaps, their family members and close friends. ”
Hey Green, slut shaming (and its male equivalent for men who do the same thing) works for a reason. It’s the business of those who associate with these persons. What if their associates have children and hold said cheater up as a an example of morality and/or goodness in a world gone amuck? If they’re willing to cheat before Almighty God on an oath they took before Him, what else are they willing to let slide?
“The private lives and sexual choices of fully formed adults are usually very complicated and thus impossible to understand — and certainly impossible to judge — without wallowing around in the most intimate details, none of which are any of your business. That’s a very good reason not to try to sit in judgment and condemn from afar.”
As far as subjective judgment, I agree. Judging whether one goes to Heaven or Hell is the purview of God and God alone. Objectively judging, saying that they’re doing something wrong, is the purview of all of us. We are our brother’s keeper. However, for a man who has given into his homosexual tendencies such as yourself, I can understand why you don’t want people to judge partners who are unfaithful. After all, I’m sure you don’t want to hear your conscience (the voice of God) speaking to you saying that you’re living in sin by having given into your tendencies and having a relationship with David.
We’re all sinners. The reason I’m so harsh on scumsuckers like the AM crew and Greenwald is they’re shameless and they make instructing those we’re entrusted with passing on morality to that much harder since said people will see them.
“She is also very open about seeing her husband as a villain for not offering her a free pass to whore around while he is sick (and she suggests dying).”
Didn’t Newt Gingrich do something similar (except he actually whored around)?
” Nothing Greenwald writes will change whether this woman is ultimately outed and loses her job (she has a morals clause in her contract)”
Christian school teacher? Military officer?
“OR maybe the poor husband is scared witless of his impending end…” and can’t stand the thought of his wife screwing around on him while she should be doing her best to comfort him in his last hours?
“Sheesh, I thought the women were all using Tinder anyway, while the men (mostly men) used AM.”
I remember I was texting with a buddy who was on TDY one time and asked what he was doing (he was (and currently is still) single). He replied that he was hanging out with the security detail and, “winning at Tinder.” That got a good laugh from me.
@Mark
That reminds me of a joke about an armless legless girl. If this cheater what’s to be ****ed, her husband can always arrange to drop her off 25 miles off the coast. She’d be ****ed after all.
@MarcusD
That would not surprise me in the least…sorta like Sony was an insider attack too. Speaking of traditional Christian marriage, did anyone hear the Second Reading at Mass on Sunday? Ephesians 5….
@Nburke
If he knew it might hasten his death
@Novaseeker
Thanks for pointing out the immorality of what she did. Some people just do not get it.
“This is an important question. What obligation does a terminally ill spouse have in such a situation?”
They have an obligation stick to their damn vows and not cheat on their spouse!
@vascularity7777
If he knew he might change the will, too. It’d be a teachable moment for his children that actions have consequences.
“If he is unable to perform sexually, no amount of discussion will change that. What she clearly wants is his blessing to do what she did, but he is too selfish to give her this.’
This is what I don’t get. If he knows his wife is suffering due to “alienation, lovelessness, and physical deprivation” then why doesn’t he give his blessing? I would. I would expect anyone who claimed to love me to do the same.”
What happens if he gets better? What happens if she divorces him and takes the kids? Yeah, sounds like a real win win there /sarc.
Northern Observer said, “The truth is – we don’t know, and short of a detailed investigation, we can’t know.”
Yes, you are correct in a legalistic sense. But you see, we live in the real world and with a little observation of female behavior and learning to pickup queues in the lies of women, you begin to put that grey matter between your ears to work and come up with an assessment of the situation that is more accurate than the story being told. You are giving the benefit of the doubt to a woman who is being vague in her descriptions of events that may cast her in a negative light (which should be your first clue). Couple this with the fact that women are far more likely to manipulate people around her to avoid societal shame and you have a clear picture of what’s going on.
Stop NAWALTing. You’re embarrassing yourself.
73.2% of all the hacked ashley madison messges were sent to da GBFM!!!
Finally! Something about that whole affair that makes some sense!
@Boxer
This is always possible. Even if the letter is true though this is the narrative Greenwald wanted.
Even if the letter is true though this is the narrative Greenwald wanted.
Sure, it could well be fake but accurate. This is obviously a step towards normalizing cuckoldry.
My experiences have led me to soften my views of marriage as my own marriage is a deeply humbling, painful longterm commitment.
She doesn’t sound humbled. She sounds entitled.
She also sounds like she expects to be praised for being so “humble.”
Sex is not food. Let that fact be repeated again and again. If you don’t have sex you won’t die.
It’s all BS to think that anyone is justified to go indulge in adultery, or wish for the demise of their spouse, because the spouse can no longer perform sexually, for whatever reason.
Western society seems to be so fixated on the flesh to the detriment of the more important spiritual things.
Even then, since sex is one of the fundamental needs that marriage is supposed to satisfy, something needs to be done to address the sexual needs of each partner when problems arise.
What do you tell a young bride whose husband was involved in an accident at work, resulting in the loss of his penis?
How do you address the needs of a husband whose wife develops a genital cancer which makes intercourse impossible?
How will a husband handle a chronically depressed wife who is never interested in sex, and when she finally gets to it, cries all the way through the act?
How about the diabetic husband who simply can’t get it up—viagra or not?
I won’t pretend to know all the answers, and I pray I am not faced with any of the above scenarios.
I think the cancer patient offered to sex his wife and she was out of gina tingle with him.
Boxer has it right.
This whole article and letter is just cover for this chick when her now public profile is public as in people that personally know her see she is a cheater. Her husbands tears were the red pill reality of who she and women are. He foolishly thought he married and was living under wedding vows of commitment. He saw something horrifying. Living in the bliss of blue pill Christianity and civilization is emotionally traumatizing when red pill reality rears it’s pretty face of truth.
I have lived through this situation. My wife was a brilliant woman of 33 when she contracted some kind of brain disease. We spent the next year and millions of dollars (went through the usually unstated cap on the heath insurance) trying to figure out what the disease was. We never did. She died of seizures, and the autopsy showed large areas of her brain had become voids.
Prior to this disease she had earned two masters degrees in the time I earned one; and had two babies and worked full time while doing it. Because I was the faster typist she dictated her thesis to me from memory using note cards only for the citations. It impressed me greatly. She died the Saturday before she was scheduled to go into long term care (nursing home) on Monday morning. By that time her testing showed an IQ of about 70, and she was unable to care for herself or others. She was unable to watch TV as she could not follow what was going on. She could not answer the phone because she would say anything to anyone and not remember that she had said it. She could not cook because she would but a pan on the burner and forget about it.
My guilt was not about adultery, but about denying her need for sex. She had always had the higher sex drive. But she was not really the woman I married anymore. She was more like a slightly retarded child. I was well aware of the charge not to deny the spouse unless there were good reason and only for a short time, but reality doesn’t work that way. Viagra did not exist at that time, and I was unable to become aroused in that situation.
She was never a selfish woman. She had a huge heart and compassion to spare. As well as our own children we usually were caring for one or more foster children as well. She worked in a poor rural southern school and mostly with special needs children. She ran clothing drives to get these kids shoes and coats for the winter. However, as the disease progressed it did become all about her. This is just the way real life is. When you are that ill your focus becomes the self. This is true of everyone. No one in this situation should be criticized for this. On the last night of her life we had had a very bad day. We argued and I finally said, “If you think you are the only one suffering here, you are crazy.” I am very glad that we did not let the sun go down on our anger. The greatest comfort I have had in all the years since her death is that the last words we said to one another were, “I love you.” Every time you part from a loved one you should say this, because you never know when it will be the last time.
greyghost
Her husbands tears were the red pill reality of who she and women are. He foolishly thought he married and was living under wedding vows of commitment. He saw something horrifying
Ding. Ding. Ding. Definitely Ding. Man, I didn’t see it the first two times: what exactly did she say, and how did she say it, when talking (monologue most likely) about … my emotional or sexual needs without him fixating on his death and crying.
Was it something like “Dear, I don’t find you very attractive anymore so I need an outside man to satisfy me”? Not that bluntly, of course, women usually don’t talk that way, but the gist of it. Might that bring a man with cancer to an emotional state? Yeah, I think so.
Even though all we know about this conversation is what she says to Greenwald, there are clear “tells” embedded in the narrative.
In other words, you’re assuming as “true” facts that aren’t at all in evidence, because of your own personal experience.
Just like “Jeremy” (heh) in that other thread….”I know an anecdote, and it is a magical weapon that slays all facts and arguments.”
@Lyn87
Two Movie Industries separated by a common language: I don’t think she ever went to Hollywood (so your ignorance is to be excused) but remained in Pinewood. Probably her best role was in Ice Cold in Alex (1958) when she was twenty-four, though I thought she was delightful in the somewhat inappropriate and very low-budget East of Sudan (1964). Soon however she began to play wives Victim (1961), The Tamarind Seed (1974) – frequently playing opposite Anthony Quayle (Alex, Sudan, Seed). Her impersonation of a teenager in The Big Job (1965) tickled me.
73.2% of all the hacked ashley madison messges were sent to da GBFM!!!
and 26.8% went to Bernanke!
Deti said, “It seems odd that any halfway decently attractive woman would need to go on a website to find men willing to cheat with her.”
Supply and demand. She’s probably a low SMV woman which would explain the majority of women on a site that peddles adultery, but only 5-10% of the customer base is actually female.
I have lived the flip side – my wife died of cancer. No, I did not cheat on her, or force myself upon her. I swore an oath when we married, breaking it at any time (let alone when my wife so desperately needed me) was not going to happen.
We are more than our appetites.
I have a feeling Greenwald got trolled by the woman that sent the email. Did he check that the email he received was on the Ashely Madison data-dump list?
@ Mickey
How long have you have been reading this blog and others like it to know that you don’t accept the words coming out of a woman’s mouth at face value?
A man cheats on his wife dying of cancer. Do we pity him?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards_extramarital_affair
Look at the differences of how the cheaters respond.
Man
“In 2006, I made a serious error in judgment and conducted myself in a way that was disloyal to my family and to my core beliefs. I recognized my mistake and I told my wife that I had a liaison with another woman, and I asked for her forgiveness. Although I was honest in every painful detail with my family, I did not tell the public. When a supermarket tabloid told a version of the story, I used the fact that the story contained many falsities to deny it. But being 99 percent honest is no longer enough…”
In other words, the man says “I’m an idiot and I’m sorry.”
Woman
“I also used to write about marriage law policy, encouraging traditional marriage for the good of children. My institution has a morality clause in all contracts.
Mine is a loveless, sexless, parenting marriage. I will care for my husband if his cancer spreads, we manage good will for the sake of the children, but we cannot talk about my emotional or sexual needs without him fixating on his death and crying.”
In other words, the woman says “judgemental people are idiots and they should be sorry about how this affects me.”
“the smug moralizers…”
Holy crap, that is funny. These are people who demanded Justine Sacco’s head on a stake via Twitter because they weren’t smart enough to understand her left wing / anti-white people joke. They’re the people who wanted Tim Hunt fired, again, for a joke in a pro women speech they weren’t smart enough to get, or which they willfully ignored. They are fans of Requires Hate.
And they have the nerve to call anybody else a smug moralizer?
Mickey actually sounds like a woman. Marcus do you still have that sex analyzer handy?
http://therationalmale.com/2011/09/01/sexual-fluidity/
Also:
http://www.livescience.com/51970-available-options-shape-sexual-orientation.html
Is this guy too sick to hold the vibrator? What more does she need if she loves her husband?
“Im sure Rollo or CH has an article of the flexibility of female sexuality under long term stress or loneliness.”
Look to prisons. Look to homosocial cultures where marriages are arranged, often too late. Look to the animal kingdom. Its neither gender nor species specific. Nature abhors a vacuum.
MarkDiver5, your experience leaves me speechless. Thank you for sharing it, and sorry for your loss. What a dichotomy, compared to the ugly Glennwald story.
JDG: Occurred to me too, when I read Mickey’s comment that began by accusing someone of being rude. That’s typically a female reaction.
“How long have you have been reading this blog and others like it to know that you don’t accept the words coming out of a woman’s mouth at face value?”
Don’t worry, I take everything I read and hear about other people with a grain of salt.
” Occurred to me too, when I read Mickey’s comment that began by accusing someone of being rude. That’s typically a female reaction.”
Could be cultural difference too. I’m not from the US. Just came a little under two years ago. Only recently found out pink is supposedly a non-masculine color here. So I’m not fully assimilated yet, and I don’t plan on ever giving up my native language (when among other speakers of it here) or core cultural and family values and religious customs and holidays. That said, even I chastised mikediver5 for hating his own American culture and American women. The American people, including women, have been nothing but welcoming and open to me. I even like some of the food.
“Well, I have to wonder if the marriage vows in your country include the phrase “in sickness and in health” or some equivalent of it and exactly what it means to someone when they say it there. In the US, marriage vows usually mean one is not free to have sex with other people. I assume it’s the same in Canada, since Ashley Madison is a Canadian website and is used to help people sneak around and hide what they’re doing from their spouses. At least, it used to be.”
In my country also nobody expects or wants their spouse to cheat on them. But if they do, something will be worked out. Especially women are expected to tolerate this but men do too because divorce is still such a taboo. We don’t marry individuals, we marry entire families. Family unification takes precedent over individual happiness. This is one reason I probably won’t marry a girl from back home picked out for me by my parents . American rugged individualism has rubbed off on me in just two short years. Whether that’s a good or bad thing in the long run remains to be seen, but its working for me right now.
@greyghost
“”Boxer has it right.
This whole article and letter is just cover for this chick when her now public profile is public as in people that personally know her see she is a cheater.””
Agreed! Also,there have been 2 suicides attributed to the AM debacle here in Toronto.I just went by their head office about an hour ago.It seems business as usual.Except,they have 2 security guards posted outside the front doors and there was a CityTV news van parked out front.There were 3 people talking to the security guards and I will assume that they were the TV crew.
@Mikediver5
Very touching story,in fact,heartbreaking I have to say.I hope everything is going well for yourself after going through such a traumatic experience.
Nice Try Mickey:
Dalrock, I assume you are checking her email for the Insanity link?
SHE claims to be from another country and speaks another language yet speaks and types PERFECT American English. Not buying it.
Mikediver5 man I want to say sorry brother for picking on you. In your other comments you seem to be disparaging American women and pedastalizing Asian women and traditional Asian cultures. I’m from one of those cultures and have grown up around those women so for me there is no fascination there where I will think they are better than American women. But after reading your post about your first presumed American wife I want to say sorry man.
“My guilt was not about adultery, but about denying her need for sex. She had always had the higher sex drive. But she was not really the woman I married anymore. She was more like a slightly retarded child. I was well aware of the charge not to deny the spouse unless there were good reason and only for a short time, but reality doesn’t work that way. Viagra did not exist at that time, and I was unable to become aroused in that situation.”
Like you say reality does not work that way.
” However, as the disease progressed it did become all about her. This is just the way real life is. When you are that ill your focus becomes the self. This is true of everyone. No one in this situation should be criticized for this. On the last night of her life we had had a very bad day. We argued and I finally said, “If you think you are the only one suffering here, you are crazy.”
And these illustrate my point about the nuanced areas of interpersonal relationships like marriage. That’s why I say the lady in the article did the right thing by not stressing out her cancer patient husband any more than he already was and quietly meeting her needs and keeping the marriage intact and family unified. I don’t agree with outing her and hackers are a scourge.
Hi, I know this blog is about the destructive and weak behavior of women in their relationships with men. However, I was wondering if you can think of any comparable examples of behavior exhibited by men in their relationships with women. I know that’s not the focus of this blog, though.
“SHE claims to be from another country and speaks another language yet speaks and types PERFECT American English. ”
I was taught in English medium schools and colleges, as are most of the immigrants from my demographic here. If its hard for you to wrap your mind around bi-lingualism, your head would explode in my country where many people know at least three languages, often more.
I would like to thank everyone for their well wishes but it was a long time ago. Our youngest was 3 then, now he is 21. Time doesn’t erase anything, but it does put things in perspective. I was discussing with one of my sisters the passing of a member of our large extended family and we started listing all the kin in our generation that have passed. It shocked us, when we put it all together, with how many have already gone on. That and this article dredged up a lot of memories.
If Mickey is really a Singh, that would explain some cultural oddities. Indian culture is a weird mix of red pill reality and total blue-pill pedestalization, and the Sikh subculture has even more curiousities, from my perspective.
Haha Anonymous Reader I’m curious what you find curious about Sikh culture. We often pride ourselves on being the only normal Indians so this should be good….
@ Mickey Singh
“And these illustrate my point about the nuanced areas of interpersonal relationships like marriage.”
In Christian marriages there are 3 parties involved. 1 God 2. Husband 3. Wife. Did she in her interpersonal relationship with God follow His instructions? Did she in her interpersonal relationship stay faithful to her husband or even have the decency to inform him of her ‘extracurricular activities’? Did she just make new interpersonal relationships with another man/other men at the detriment of all concerned [including her children’s safety]?
“That’s why I say the lady in the article did the right thing by not stressing out her cancer patient husband any more than he already was and quietly meeting her needs and keeping the marriage intact and family unified.”
Meeting her needs? What about meeting her duties and obligations? You are on an opiate if you think that this kind of behaviour is anything but dysfunctional.
“I don’t agree with outing her and hackers are a scourge.”
-He who enjoys the benefit, ought also to bear the burden.
“Meeting her needs? What about meeting her duties and obligations?”
no9 she did meet her duties and obligations by not abandoning her husband. She stayed married, took care of him and kept the children with their father and the family unified. She’s human, not a robot. She tried to broach the subject with her husband but he shut down into depression and death obsession. Putting myself in the same situation I can’t say with certainty that I would not do the same thing. I’m just exercising some empathy here based on my own innate humanness.
Mickey
She tried to broach the subject with her husband but he shut down into depression and death obsession
How do you know? Because she said so? Rationalization after the fact is a standard female response.
Haha Anonymous Reader I’m curious what you find curious about Sikh culture.
Last names and hair, for a start. Nothing wrong with either, I’ve found Sikhs to be easy to work with. But still curious.
@ Mickey Singh
“no9 she did meet her duties and obligations by not abandoning her husband. She stayed married, took care of him and kept the children with their father and the family unified.”
No those are her privileges.
“She’s human, not a robot.”
Yes you are right… she acted like an animal in heat.
“She tried to broach the subject with her husband but he shut down into depression and death obsession.”
What does this have to do with her wilfully signing up to commit adultery? – He who has committed iniquity, shall not have equity
“Putting myself in the same situation I can’t say with certainty that I would not do the same thing.”
Well is right and wrong determined by a show of hands or by what God says?
“I’m just exercising some empathy here based on my own innate humanness.”
Sorry but “Hate the sin love the sinner” is something Ghandi said. It is not found in the Bible.
Its Gandhi, not Ghandi. And you seem to assume the lady subscribes to the same religious faith you do. I would like to think I could discuss this sort of thing with my spouse if I were in either position, either being the sick one or the care-giver. Her husband was not open to discussing it and that is pure selfish ego. Sick people can be bitches who make it all about them. He wasn’t the only one suffering, as mikedriver5 put it. He still had obligations toward his wife, cancer or no cancer.
And yes, like Dalrock I’m playing along and assuming this is a real case and not some fabricated story. So based solely on what I read here, I’m forming my opinions, taking the internet with a grain of salt as I always do. End of.
Rachel
Hi, I know this blog is about the destructive and weak behavior of women in their relationships with men. However, I was wondering if you can think of any comparable examples of behavior exhibited by men in their relationships with women. I know that’s not the focus of this blog, though.
Dearie, there is a whole, wide world out there full of sites devoted to studying all the many failings of men. From Cosmo to Slate to Feministing to tiny blogs, the number of places where you can discuss men’s bad behavior is effectively unlimited. The number of places where truth is told, especially about women, is very limited. So popping up and saying “Well, what about when guys do it, huh?” may be very tempting to you, but it’s not new and it’s not interesting. If you stick around, rather than running off in a huff, you might learn a thing or two. But muddying the waters won’t get you any lurv.
tl;dr:
“Men Do That Too” is just pure squid ink. It’s not a logical argument.
I think somebody needs to remind this gal that marriage is for better or worse. She definitely got the worse part. But, marriage is not there to make you happy, it is to make you holy, and it will do just that if you let it.
@Anonymous Reader:
“Rachel
Hi, I know this blog is about the destructive and weak behavior of women in their relationships with men. However, I was wondering if you can think of any comparable examples of behavior exhibited by men in their relationships with women. I know that’s not the focus of this blog, though.
Dearie, there is a whole, wide world out there full of sites devoted to studying all the many failings of men. From Cosmo to Slate to Feministing to tiny blogs, the number of places where you can discuss men’s bad behavior is effectively unlimited. The number of places where truth is told, especially about women, is very limited. So popping up and saying “Well, what about when guys do it, huh?” may be very tempting to you, but it’s not new and it’s not interesting. If you stick around, rather than running off in a huff, you might learn a thing or two. But muddying the waters won’t get you any lurv.
tl;dr:
“Men Do That Too” is just pure squid ink. It’s not a logical argument.”
Actually, I just wanted to get input from the guys who read this site, not Cosmo and Slate. I assume you don’t think these outlets accurate in what they say anyway. My question was not a way to really say, “Well, what about when guys do it, huh?” So much of what women say men do wrong is disregarded my guys on the manosphere. I accept that and so now I am asking, without rancor or bitterness, if there are comparable examples of men’s behavior that you guys would say is unacceptable. Maybe such behaviors are few or far between. I don’t know what you guys think and I know this site isn’t about this topic — just thought I’d ask anyway.
That’s why I say the lady in the article did the right thing by not stressing out her cancer patient husband any more than he already was and quietly meeting her needs and keeping the marriage intact and family unified.
Right according to who? If she did the right thing then why is she so afraid for her deeds to be brought out into thew light for everyone to see? Adultery is NEVER the right thing, and neither is covering it up.
At 3:57 pm – Sorry, where sleep is lacking typos abound.
Hee hee, Marcus.
That is a partial
You cheat on your spouse that is your cross to bear. You carry that lie with you to the grave. Confessing that at any time is cruel and the most selfish crap one can tack on to the adultery in the first place. Confessing puts the burden on the other party. The cheater knows it too.
“if there are comparable examples of men’s behavior that you guys would say is unacceptable. Maybe such behaviors are few or far between. I don’t know what you guys think and I know this site isn’t about this topic — just thought I’d ask anyway.”
Yes, there are. We just don’t spend a lot of time on those issues because everyone else does anyway.
1. men’s unacceptable behavior isn’t relevant to the topic at hand.
2. Men’s unacceptable behavior doesn’t render women’s unacceptable behavior more acceptable.
3. The fact that men identify and denounce women’s unacceptable behavior does not require that men also identify and denounce men’s unacceptable behavior. “Affirmative action” or “equal time” for male unacceptable behavior on a men’s issues blog isn’t required.
4. We’re also aware that the question “what male behavior do you find unacceptable” is asked for the purpose of identifying claimed inconsistencies, hypocrisy, sexism, or some other perceived slight or wrong.
Male infidelity is unacceptable/immoral, just as female infidelity is.
Male criminal behavior is unacceptable/immoral/illegal, just as female criminal behavior is.
Also, men’s unacceptable behavior does not excuse, justify or legitimize women’s unacceptable behavior.
Rachel, do a search on “Newt Gingrich” and “cancer” for one example. Or read the text Lyn87 posted here:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/08/25/why-wont-he-hurry-up-and-die-already/#comment-186602
Ditto a search on “Jon Edwards” and “affair” or read the Wiki entry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards_extramarital_affair
In the future, you might consider reading all the comments before asking questions that have already been answered. Otherwise people will assume you’re just here to jam the conversation.
4. We’re also aware that the question “what male behavior do you find unacceptable” is asked for the purpose of identifying claimed inconsistencies, hypocrisy, sexism, or some other perceived slight or wrong.
I just want to put this out there for all the “Rachel’s” who may be reading this thread:
I am sexist, a title I accept as a badge of honor. I am also a host of other PC violating stereo types, which I also accept as badges of honor. I say this to convey that there is no need for attempts to discredit anyone here with politically correct standards as we reject those standards.
When a society no longer knows right from wrong it loses all credibility in regards to moral judgement as do all members of said society who agree with the standards of that society.
greyghost says:
August 26, 2015 at 4:16 pm
Then at the very least confess it to a genuine brother in Christ and repent. There is mercy in Christ for those who confess their sins and repent. There is punishment and gnashing of teeth for those who do not.
“Confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The earnest prayer of a righteous person has great power and produces wonderful results.” James 5:16
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:9
Thank you, thedeti and Anonymous Reader, for your responses. I understand, Deti, the points (1 through 4) that you made and certainly did not intend to ask my question with any underhand motive. I’m quite sure that you guys on this site think that Newt Gingich’s behavior was wrong. But what about more subtle things. For example, when women aren’t happy for relatively trivial reasons, they seriously consider (or go through with) divorce. And there’s a rampant problem of women in their 20s sleeping around and then expecting a guy to marry them when they’re all used up. Women refuse to have regular or any sex with their husbands. The stuff you guys talk about. I’m just wondering if there are any comparable examples of behavior in men. Once again, I know this site isn’t geared towards this, just wondering what your thoughts on this might be since your thoughts on women’s behavior is not what one hears in the mainstream.
@JDG
Mickey actually sounds like a woman. Marcus do you still have that sex analyzer handy
Gender guesser says female based on “his” last 4-5 posts. Odds are a long-time female commenter that has switched handles; personally my money is on Michelle.
There were numerous tip-offs already, including strong rationalization hamster, numerous appeals to what is “normal” or “herd-approved” when discussing morality, use of straw-man questions (Michelle’s favorite) to muddy the debate, an underlying emphasis on feelz over realz.
Even the most zealous white knights tend to comprehend basic logic around a 3rd grade level and don’t hang around here for extended periods of time trolling for tingles. FWIW, this one is a dead giveaway.
The phrase “duty and obligation” has such a quaint sound, as though such a concept could only be from some golden age that never was.
Yet just as there are still Christians in this increasingly secularized world, there are people who still honor duties and obligations which they have freely chosen.
And, yes, some of these people are women.
greyghost @ 4:16 pm:
“You cheat on your spouse that is your cross to bear. You carry that lie with you to the grave. Confessing that at any time is cruel and the most selfish crap one can tack on to the adultery in the first place.”
Proverbs 28:13 disagrees. “Whoever conceals their sins does not prosper, but the one who confesses and renounces them finds mercy.”
I wasn’t trying to be biblical just fair as a man can be to the cheated on.
@ Rachel
See Dalrock’s post, a “rebuke for Yohami”. Men’s inclination to sow wild oats is the counterpart to the women’s inclination towards hypergamy and AF/BB cuckolding, with a few key differences:
1) Men capable of sleeping with numerous women (rare) are actually rewarded for their sexual immorality thanks to the in-born preferences of women. Most women prefer a stud, but no guy on Earth prefers a used-up skank.
2) Women are firmly in control of the SMP (for now) in a way perhaps never seen in human history. This means they have nearly limitless opportunities to act immorally, whereas exceedingly few men are afforded the same opportunities. Observable instances of female sexual immorality today surpass comparable male behavior by a country-mile.
3) Because women are firmly in control of the SMP, emphasis on the sexual immorality of men is immaterial and misses the point. If nearly all women are monagamous, then it follows that nearly all men must be. However if nearly all men are monogamous, it does not follow that nearly all women will be. Only a tiny fraction of males is required to impregnate an entire population of females.
“Right according to who? If she did the right thing then why is she so afraid for her deeds to be brought out into thew light for everyone to see?”
Because bringing such things to light is not the right thing to do if it will break up the family.
Greyghost gets it. “You cheat on your spouse that is your cross to bear. You carry that lie with you to the grave. Confessing that at any time is cruel and the most selfish crap one can tack on to the adultery in the first place.”
Because bringing such things to light is not the right thing to do if it will break up the family.
What you “feel” is the right thing for the family is not your call hun. It is his right to know, at which point he may decide there is sufficient reason to break-up the family, particularly if his wife happens to be a useless whore.
Your hamster is on overdrive and it is plain for everyone to see.
Mickey Singh @ 6:27 pm:
“Because bringing such things to light is not the right thing to do if it will break up the family.”
The family is already broken except the chump doesn’t know it yet. She should have thought about “the chilllldreeeen” before slutting up.
God: “Why did you commit the adultery?”
Slut: “He didn’t love me!”
God: “Why did you hide the adultery?”
Slut: “Because I love him!”
God: “You’re lying.”
Slut: “I’m talking about my lover, not my husband.”
I see what you’re saying, PuffyJacket.
“@ Rachel
See Dalrock’s post, a “rebuke for Yohami”. Men’s inclination to sow wild oats is the counterpart to the women’s inclination towards hypergamy and AF/BB cuckolding, with a few key differences:
1) Men capable of sleeping with numerous women (rare) are actually rewarded for their sexual immorality thanks to the in-born preferences of women. Most women prefer a stud, but no guy on Earth prefers a used-up skank.
2) Women are firmly in control of the SMP (for now) in a way perhaps never seen in human history. This means they have nearly limitless opportunities to act immorally, whereas exceedingly few men are afforded the same opportunities. Observable instances of female sexual immorality today surpass comparable male behavior by a country-mile.
3) Because women are firmly in control of the SMP, emphasis on the sexual immorality of men is immaterial and misses the point. If nearly all women are monagamous, then it follows that nearly all men must be. However if nearly all men are monogamous, it does not follow that nearly all women will be. Only a tiny fraction of males is required to impregnate an entire population of females.”
Nice try Mickey. This women is blaming her affair on her husband . Next step after caught is to own up and be apologetic. First step honor marriage. Second step bear the burden of your own adultery. next step is to own up. None of this is happening here.
BPP:- “SHE claims to be from another country and speaks another language yet speaks and types PERFECT American English.”
Indeed, American. So idiomatic that common Native English (as in King’s/Queen’s) wranglers, such as wot like I are myself sit up and pay attention.
It’ll be that nutty Indian bird who’s always hassling Rollo. Demented old porker.
Rachel
The stuff you guys talk about. I’m just wondering if there are any comparable examples of behavior in men. Once again, I know this site isn’t geared towards this, just wondering what your thoughts on this might be since your thoughts on women’s behavior is not what one hears in the mainstream.
Translation: “Could I please hijack this discussion thread away from women’s bad behavior and focus it on how Men Do That Too, because feelbads?”
You’ve been answered multiple times, by more than one man. Be content with that.
Mickey = SLUT desparately trying to rationalize cheating on her husband. This goes a long way in explaining the gargantuan size of her Hamster.
Because bringing such things to light is not the right thing to do if it will break up the family.
Says who? From what authority do you speak?
Here is what the Apostle Paul wrote about the subject:
Ephesians 5:6-14
6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not become partners with them; 8 for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), 10 and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. 13 But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, 14 for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says,
“Awake, O sleeper,
and arise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you.”
Here is what the Son of God said about the subject:
Mark 4:22
“For nothing is hidden, except to be revealed; nor has anything been secret, but that it would come to light.
Luke 12:3
“Accordingly, whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in the inner rooms will be proclaimed upon the housetops.
John 3:20
“For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.”
It’ll be that nutty Indian bird who’s always hassling Rollo. Demented old porker.
The infamous Plain Jane? Could be going by this thread. Over on the “Problem with Knowledge” thread he/she seems a little bit more coherent than PJ, Thought the pattern as I’ve seen it seems to be that she starts out some what coherent gradually sinks into PC on steroids craziness.
A petition to classify ‘feminism’ as a terrorist group.
LOL … sign me up.
@A Visitor
“Speaking of traditional Christian marriage, did anyone hear the Second Reading at Mass on Sunday? Ephesians 5…”
The priest said:
—
@JDG
“Mickey actually sounds like a woman. Marcus do you still have that sex analyzer handy?”
It says “74%”
Whether or not Mickey is who he/she claims to be, he (I’ll use that until convinced otherwise) is saying things that a lot of people actually believe: and what it comes down to is that there is no absolute moral standard. Adultery is bad…ish. Concealing it is okay…ish. There’s always some reason why THIS action or THAT circumstance is not quiiiiiite bad enough to condemn… IF the speaker wishes to do so.
It’s nonsense of course. Even the most strident atheist will fall over himself condemning things he finds offensive… spewing out words that have literally NO meaning outside of a moral context. Take their stuff, kill their loved ones, and stretch them on the rack for laughs and they will suddenly have a new-found appreciation for absolute Moral Law. But Moral Law is an utterly meaningless term without a Absolute Moral Lawgiver. And since everyone accepts that there are moral absolutes (when push comes to shove and it affects them personally), it is only cognitive dissonance that allows moral relativists like atheists (and Hindus) to waffle on the subject and attempt to muddy the waters as Mickey has done throughout this thread.
What the woman did is wrong. Full stop. And the reason it is wrong is because God – the Moral Lawgiver – said that adultery is always wrong. If her husband is wounded by the affairs, it would be wrong. If he never finds out, it would still be wrong. If he’s a complete d-bag, it would still be wrong. And even if he gave his blessing and drove her to the hotel himself, it would still be wrong. This is not subject to a vote; and neither her, nor Mickey’s, nor anyone else’s refusal to acknowledge God as the ultimate moral arbiter has any bearing on the morality (or rebellion against morality) of an action.
Outstanding. You don’t justify it.
“The man is sick. It’s HIS emotional and sexual needs they should be focusing on; but she’s so blinded by her own selfishness she can’t or won’t do that.
It’s a bitch and a half. It really is. But them’s the breaks. Marriage is hard, sometimes crushingly hard. People know (or should know) that going in. You don’t marry thinking it’s going to be rainbows and unicorns; you marry KNOWING it could be very, VERY hard sometimes.”
So sad that this woman can’t and will not see this. It is incredible selfishness. Northern Observer, this man is dying of cancer; cancer (and everything used to treat it) is a horribly painful death. I’ve watched people dying of cancer, even long before their “end” they are a shell of who they used to be. And in the very end, in so much pain, even the strongest pain meds hardly touch it.
This woman is sick, her attitude is just repulsive. A “loveless” marriage is created by not being kind to each other, compassionate, and friends to the very core. She says they have “goodwill” in their marriage, so this is not about him mistreating her in any way, narcissists don’t create “goodwill”; if there is “goodwill” then there should be “friendship, helpfulness, cooperativeness” in their relationship. Its clear she’s taking advantage of a good man that she has at least some kind of friendship with. Even the synonyms of “goodwill” are “kindness, compassion, goodness, consideration, charity, thoughtfulness, decency, amity, sympathy, understanding, neighborliness.”
She has ILL-will towards her poor husband, as she is not showing him any of the named qualities behind “goodwill.” Her actions harm him, their marriage, and certainly will harm her children. They will more than likely all be caught up in a scandal, her losing her job (he’s probably unable to work and has major medical bills as well – cancer can make you go bankrupt). It will bring him SO MUCH SHAME while he’s still dying and in extreme physical pain. “A wife that brings shame to her husband is like rottenness in his bones.”
She has a DUTY and responsibility to her husband, she made vows to support him in sickness, and she knows very well that she has violated that in so many ways by choosing not to put him first during this time, take care of him with a compassionate and loving attitude. This is about her taking advantage of his extremely painful illness and treatments that he’s possibly undergoing, taking advantage of the man DYING and of the fact that he might be only a shell of the man he was, so that she can have as many affairs as she wants.
It does not matter if she didn’t cheat (although I’d bet a ton of money she did, multiple times). The very act of signing up for such an account is a massive betrayal to her husband and their marriage, AND their kids. Whoever commented that she was being “unselfish” thinking of putting her kids and husband before her is insane.
She was putting her desire to CHEAT before her husband and children. Before the fact that he needs her to be understanding and supportive, before the fact that he’s dying of an extremely painful illness. She only cares about herself here, and it is chilling that she’s already getting ready to defend, unapologetically, her decision to throw him, their children, and their marriage under a bus during such a ridiculous time.
It wasn’t about sex, in this case she should have been able to handle that herself using something (anything?) to get her needs met. A loving wife that actually cared about her husband would not do anything else. This was her taking her chance (having what she thought was a valid excuse) to cheat on him. Even if she had the hypergamic thoughts of “what if” or “what then,” as most if not all women do, a woman who loves her husband and cares about him would squash those thoughts as soon as they came up (“take every thought captive…”). Its the same as a husband with an ill wife, of course he’d be even more tempted (maybe?) because of the higher sex drive, but you would think a loving, caring husband that was going through her treatments with her and watching her sickness would be more consumed with all that than with the decision to get online and use her dying as an excuse to cheat.
If marriage isn’t morally binding in regards to sex, as in biblical marriage, then there is absolutely no reason for men to marry. Sex is already available to men without marriage, as is cohabitation, children etc. Men who do not have moral reason for restricting sexuality to marriage have absolutely no reason to marry. The feminist here arguing to justify infidelity as “needs” in a sexless marriage simply need to promote abolition of marriage for anyone who’s morals don’t require it. Then secular men will be spared the legally binding exploitation of their resources that these sham marriages/divorces currently represent.
bravo dragonfly
The feminists in Spain are even loonier than in the U.S.A. Men can be sent to prison by a “gender violence” allegation that does not need to be true or even credible and no proof is required. The police have a hard time investigating the claims because the victim won’t cooperate with the investigation. Their lawyers tell them to just make the accusation. Some people are trying to get the current Spanish government tried in the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.
This is not subject to a vote; and neither her, nor Mickey’s, nor anyone else’s refusal to acknowledge God as the ultimate moral arbiter has any bearing on the morality (or rebellion against morality) of an action.
Yep!
The whole post at 10:14 pm is spot on.
@Dragonfly: Do you think that women would be more able to control their hypergamic instincts in cases like this if they were actually made aware of them?
The man’s solution would be a quiet affair. He would continue to attend his wife and it would only be about ‘sex.’ It may not be the moral solution but it is better than her strange and breathtakingly cruel demand that her dying husband acquiesce in his open cuckoldry.
Help! How to loose a Guy who is infatuated? (“When you have some time, read The Gift of Fear.”)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=975580
@NovaSeeker
>Human psychology is itself fallen, and will be subject to all kinds of disordered desires and passions.
This is a critical fact. Some use “natural desires” to excuse sinful actions.
@Rachael
> if there are comparable examples of men’s behavior that you guys would say is unacceptable
Please see Exodus 20:1-17 for a good start. You can use http://www.BibleGateway.com if you do not have a Bible handy.
Then the whole books of James (in the Bible), and Titus chapters 2 and 3. Matthew chapters 5 to 7 are also a classic example of preaching about our responsibilities.
Any behaviour that violates any of the above are unacceptable, regardless of the sex/race/age/whatever of the person doing them.
As for subtle things… the subtle things you mention are actually severe; it is just that (some) women are accustomed to rationalizing/excusing sin.
– divorce: I think it is Malachi that shows that God hates divorce.
– women in 20s sleeping around: Deut 22 shows a non-virgin bride was fair-game for the death penalty
– women refusing their husbands: Direct violation of 1 Cor 7:1-5
So I would class your examples as major, not subtle.
If no Scripture reference is available for something, then I need to admit it is only my OPINION that it is wrong. Perhaps I think I have great reasons for my opinion, but it is still an opinion, not fact.
Pingback: Marriage is not about unicorns. | Dark Brightness
http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944
This comment to the Gizmodo article is both informative and unsurprising:
For the record, this is the case with most (if not all) of the paid dating sites. I know, because I used to make money writing them. I wrote profiles for five or six sites – the biggest customers were two religion based ones, one for seniors and one for gay men, too. I was paid to write the profile, upload a photo (usually stock photos, although they didn’t really care), and then after those profiles went live they were never logged into again. At one time the gig of creating these was listed as a job on Amazon Turk, this would have been all the way back in 2010-2011.
As for AM, it seems that the true ratio of men to women is supposed to be 28 million men to 5 million women.
The imbalance is actually much bigger, as that Gizmodo article shows.
Hmmm, since it has been established that wives now cheat as much as men, this seems a bit off.
“Established” by what? Online surveys? Shoddy “research” carried out by overworked wage slaves or unpaid interns to prove some gynocentric dogma? Simple evo psych and biology tells us that women have more opportunities and incentives to cheat. Do the math.
@ Mickey Singh
“Its Gandhi, not Ghandi.”
How ironic. Highlighting my typo by starting with one of your own [ It’s not Its]
“And you seem to assume the lady subscribes to the same religious faith you do.”
No you assumed wrong. Where did I say that I thought she did? And since when does “religious faith” excuse destructive and dysfunctional behaviour?
“I would like to think I could discuss this sort of thing with my spouse if I were in either position, either being the sick one or the care-giver.”
Well does that include discussing it with the women of the men she will have an affair with as well? Because you forgot to think about adding them into the mix [Oh and don’t forget the children….this type of debauchery must do wonders for their psyche].
“Her husband was not open to discussing it and that is pure selfish ego.”
You accuse me of making assumptions yet nowhere did she say that she discussed with her husband having extra marital affairs. Nor does she even mention her husband’s ego.
“Sick people can be bitches who make it all about them.”
You do realise that “Two wrongs makes a right” is a logical fallacy don’t you?
“He wasn’t the only one suffering, as mikedriver5 put it.”
So she decided to multiply the suffering and drag others in as well.
“He still had obligations toward his wife, cancer or no cancer.”
So how does this give her the right to partake in extra marital affairs with another woman’s husband?
Mickey Singh says:
August 25, 2015 at 7:18 pm
““Yeah, my first thought upon reading this article was, ‘Flip the sexes and see how much sympathy a man would get for cheating on his sick, dying wife.”
I did flip it. I pictured myself in the situation and I can tell you without a doubt I would seek out someone else if my wife were terminally ill and unable to have sex. In my culture empathy is extended to men who do so. The wife would silently accept, she might even empathize.”
Singh, I’m assuming you’re of Indian Sikh decent? While there might be sympathy for the man in such a situation, a woman will not be afforded any such sympathy. Wives stepping out of their marriage – in Indian culture (really any culture except contemporary Western) – is heavy looked down upon. They are seen as the lowest of the low. You don’t seem very consistent here my friend.
Peter Blood:
“Greenwald is a homosexual, so of course he realizes importance of monogamy.
Also:
–Makes a name exposing Snowden leaks
–Writes about how Ashley Madison leaks are no one’s business
It’s SO COMPLICATED! Who are we to judge??”
Lol! Thankyou. I needed that this morning. Very well done. 🙂
Greyghost: “That is a partial
You cheat on your spouse that is your cross to bear. You carry that lie with you to the grave. Confessing that at any time is cruel and the most selfish crap one can tack on to the adultery in the first place. Confessing puts the burden on the other party. The cheater knows it too.”
Except people usually find out.
And if/when he or she does, it will be far far worse for him or her not only knowing about the betrayal but also knowing everyone else knew but him/her.
“Singh, I’m assuming you’re of Indian Sikh decent? While there might be sympathy for the man in such a situation, a woman will not be afforded any such sympathy. Wives stepping out of their marriage – in Indian culture (really any culture except contemporary Western) – is heavy looked down upon. They are seen as the lowest of the low. You don’t seem very consistent here my friend.”
I already addressed that in one of my previous posts. Some Indian women do have affairs. Some husbands do find out and still don’t divorce them because in our culture family unity comes above everything else. Divorce is still a huge taboo and scandal among the bulk of common people in India, though its true the rate is rising.
@ ace
“Singh, I’m assuming you’re of Indian Sikh decent? While there might be sympathy for the man in such a situation, a woman will not be afforded any such sympathy.”
Even in the Sikh religion and culture as a general rule engaging in pre-marital or extra-marital affairs, plural marriage, divorce or remarry, or otherwise take second spouse, while the first is living is not accepted.
I’m pretty sure a culture that traditionally practiced Suttee would take a dim view of female infidelity.
“What you “feel” is the right thing for the family is not your call hun. It is his right to know, at which point he may decide there is sufficient reason to break-up the family, particularly if his wife happens to be a useless whore.
Your hamster is on overdrive and it is plain for everyone to see.”
On principle I don’t keep pets. I was raised in a culture that doesn’t have a “right to know” clause. What you see as my own rationalizations or being feminine (???) is actually the ethos of not airing dirty laundry that my culture raised me with. Ours is not an overly expressive Oprah therapy culture. We keep silent and do what we have to do to get away with something and keep the family together. I said before I love American culture and American women, but exposing an affair and breaking up the family over it is something I cannot abide by.
If this poor woman is so impatient for her wretched husband to die, she can always try the Wendi Andriano method.
http://murderpedia.org/female.A/a/andriano-wendi.htm
On principle I don’t keep pets.
Other than that furry little guy residing in your brain.
Does your culture also cause you to write like a female and engage in frequent deception too?
I was raised in a culture that doesn’t have a “right to know” clause.
I’m sure your “culture” also doesn’t have a “get out of jail-free” clause for cheating on your spouse. Particularly if the one doing the cheating is a female, like you.
@ Mickey Singh
“but exposing an affair”
– He who is silent appears to consent
– Concealment of the truth is (equivalent to) a statement of what is false.
“and breaking up the family over”
God is clear. Adultery is a valid reason for divorce not a given that it will happen. What God wants a strong family unit. What you want is a family that is rotten at its core with lies and deceit. Remove the foundation, the structure or work fall.” [Luke 6;48-49] What type of foundation is there to be found in adultery and deceit?
“ it is something I cannot abide by.”
Well what you can or cannot abide by is irrelevant, the outcome is always the same. “Let justice be done, though the heavens should fall.”
@Mickey
You are the arbiter of absolute morality. All human kind was in a miserable state of deep ignorance until you arrived to bathe us in the light of your immaculate wisdom. You are Prometheus, your intellect is the fire that will allow we pathetic mortals to survive. Is any amount of worship enough to show our gratitude at your sacrificial generosity?
You are a parasite. You exist only the resources and labor of other, more disciplined and more dedicated than yourself. While eating raw from the dying corpse of Christ centered marriages you stab with impunity into the very host you suckle from. Berating and foaming with intense hatred at the very being that allows you the freedom to rail against it. You are a specially pathetic kind of hypocrite, one who will turn on a dime and drop their pretense for moral ambiguity the second that doing so becomes moderately uncomfortable.
In the future panic, in the upcoming dis-array, upon you the fate you wished upon absolute morality. Upon you the verdict you wished upon Christ centered marriage, ignoble death, savaging, consumption by your foes.
Then everyone else is a POS too. It still stands it is the cheater’s cross to bear And knowing what the results will be the cheater doesn’t get ease the pain of their conscience with a confession to a friend to carry the burden. If it is that damn bad don’t cheat in the first place. Lyn87 had a nice post on the subject.
As has been pointed out above, the majority of accounts labeled “female” at A-M are fake. In the Gizmodo article there’s a paragraph pointing out that some 80,000 accounts had an IP address that traced directly to an A-M computer. A woman would have to be rather special to create an account there, because it would destroy all plausible deniability that is inherent in female mating schemes. The woman in the OP actually fits that. Given her likely workplace, an affair at work would be extremely dangerous, and also any attempt at an affair at a conference or other out of town meeting would be just as dangerous because of the subculture she’s in.
Just going to the next town to a night spot would also be quite dangerous, because unlike many other women she’d lose her job, and thus her ability to support her children, were she found out. So an A-M account, with the seeming anonymity that it offers, would actually make sense.
This woman, if she exists and isn’t just another Greenwald story, could be one of the few actual female humans on A-M. Rather ironic in a way.
And the story, regardless of the veracity, does demonstrate the feral side of female nature that the androsphere has been pointing out for a few years now, the uncomfortable truth that demolishes pretty lies. No surprise we’ve seen a few attempts to “rebuild the mound”, and I’m confident that some serious ant-level engineering is going on at other sites.
Meanwhile, it is obvious that A-M was set up by men who believed that women are just like them (except for tits and babies). When the expected torrent of hot MILF subscribers didn’t show up, they just hired writers to create accounts. Of course that means that men who paid money to A-M were defrauded. I doubt that any attorney general will be going after A-M, but it will be interesting to see if any individuals do. There could be some men who signed up for A-M out of a dead bedroom marriage, that marriage has since ended, and now they feel cheated. Maybe cheated in more than one way.
Someone should be able to own A-M, unless there was a lot of fine print. Of course, A-M’s assets may not be all that much. Rented servers, etc.
Again this hack may be a significant event, because there’s some pretty lies that are now quite exposed.
“Then everyone else is a POS too.”
Not really. It’s understanding that someone outside the marriage wouldn’t want to break news they know would ruin a marriage and break up a family.
“If it is that damn bad don’t cheat in the first place.”
Yes, that’s pretty self-evident.
understandable…meant to say above.
“And the story, regardless of the veracity, does demonstrate the feral side of female nature that the androsphere has been pointing out for a few years now, the uncomfortable truth that demolishes pretty lies.”
Women (and many men) are very, very uncomfortable with unrestrained female sexuality. A lot of people deny this exists. But I can say as one who’s been on both sides of this equation, feral female sexuality is definitely a thing. A woman in the throes of sexual passion with a man she’s really attracted to? There’s very, very little that woman won’t do for that man. She will do and say anything to justify her behavior. She’ll commit murder (Squeaky Fromme). She’ll murder even her own children (Susan Smith). (But when you channel that sexual attraction into a marriage to a man she’s attracted to and a man who’s attracted to her, you bond them together with a superglue that cannot be dissolved.)
They’re even more uncomfortable with people judging women for displaying unrestrained sexuality. (Glenn Greenwald; InsanityBytes).
“Meanwhile, it is obvious that A-M was set up by men who believed that women are just like them”
Maybe. I think it’s more likely that AM’s creators vastly overestimated the need for married women to use a website to find available men with whom to cheat. There just isn’t a market for a site like that because the female demand isn’t there. Any woman at a 4 or above in attractiveness (including a married woman who wants to cheat) can easily find men willing to sex her.
” I think it’s more likely that AM’s creators vastly overestimated the need for married women to use a website to find available men with whom to cheat.”
Or AM’s creators saw the exploitable profit potential in fabricating a market.
This is almost like a Ponzi scheme, without the necessity for an “upper tier” winner system. It’s all anonymous, see. No one knows…everyone else might be getting lucky. Until someone stole the data and we see behind that curtain.
So, how would A-M go about creating this market? Assuming solipsism, what would induce Liz the kitten in frog’s clothing to cheat?
You need to get back on your CIPD meds.
“So, how would A-M go about creating this market?”
Gamer, according to what I read (I think someone linked to this above), the vast majority of female profiles were fabricated. That’s how they create(d) the market.
Maybe she’s just French:
http://www.businessinsider.com/study-says-french-most-likely-to-cheat-and-forgive-a-cheater-2015-6
Of course, there’s demand on one side (unhappy married men)…but the supply side didn’t really exist.
Liz, I wouldn’t assume that most of the men were married.
Either way, they were real people (most likely male) paying for a service that was almost entirely fabricated.
I still don’t understand why anyone would want to have sex with a married woman, when there are countless single women willing to have sex for free.
“I still don’t understand why anyone would want to have sex with a married woman, when there are countless single women willing to have sex for free.”
1. Married men will want to cheat with married women because they both have something to lose, and therefore an incentive toward discretion and doing it on the downlow. Neither has anything on the other — they’re in parity in terms of “wrongdoing”.
2. Single men seek married women willing to cheat because he’s under no expectation to offer commitment. For the man it’s just about sex, and it’s always going to be just about sex.
3. Men seek married women for cheating because of the raw sexual attraction. A married woman looking to cheat is looking for excitement, passion and attraction that she’s probably been lacking in the marriage.
Liz, it seems that most women don’t care about fidelity or the marital status of the man. I can count on one hand the number of times that women have asked me if I’m married. Of those, only one cared enough to distance herself from me. Lots of IoI’s from the others. Back when my ring fit and I wore it, some women found out that I’m married and kept their distance. Others didn’t care and made that clear. Most of them were married. I doubt that they needed A-M. They were probably Machiavellian and had their husbands pu$$y-whipped and trusting them. One of them seemed gleeful when she thought that I might be getting a divorce–likely she’s got some psychopathic tendencies.
Women might actually prefer “proven commitment”/preselection, aka married men. I’ve heard from some people the ring actually helps.
The evidence would indicate women don’t, however, prefer to hook up with those married men via Ashley Madison.
If marriage isn’t morally binding in regards to sex,
as in biblical marriage,
then there is absolutely no reason for men to marry.
Sex is already available to men without marriage,
as is cohabitation, children etc.
Men who do not have moral reason for restricting sexuality to marriage have absolutely no reason to marry.
The feminist here arguing to justify infidelity as “needs” in a sexless marriage
simply need to promote abolition of marriage for anyone who’s morals don’t require it.
Then secular men will be spared the legally binding exploitation of their resources
that these sham marriages/divorces currently represent.
All of this right here. Absolutely brilliant and spot on.
God will always bust the biggest hole in the nets of those that preach moral relativism and situational ethics. The end.
Its BOGUS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Look from gizmondo : “My analysis had to be entirely based on the profiles themselves, not the credit card data. There is no such thing as a “paid account” for women because women don’t have to pay for anything on Ashley Madison. As a result, I couldn’t use “paid account” as a proxy for “real” ”
Then :
“I expect to be ridiculed by colleagues, to lose my job, and to be publicly shamed, especially as a hypocrite. Yes, I used a credit card. In my case, I will get no sympathy from the right or the left as I do not fit into either of their simplistic paradigms.”
One of these things is not like the other.
I’m calling a false flag op, either by the blogger or someone wanting to do advance work incase any women get found out.
Its BOGUS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seconded
Can’t tell you how disappointed I am, considering I took out the “50 shades billionaire” package which guaranteed a 5 way with her, a sister, best friend AND eldest daughter(of legal age).
Not surprising I got no replies at all ! Any idea how I get my $50k back ?
“As has been pointed out above, the majority of accounts labeled “female” at A-M are fake.”
In hindsight, this would have been a very good guess based on data from the licit dating sites. No wonder my own online dating efforts were 10% rejection, 90% silence. I was paying for the privilege of talking to dead accounts.
God only knows how a decent young man is supposed to find a wife anymore. Parents won’t help, Church won’t help, society won’t help and now Internet dating’s a lie, too. He’s played for a fool coming and going.
The Fatherless Chump Generation isn’t going to be a peaceful one.
I guess… she was just “caught in a bad romance” right, Mickey Singh?
https://fbcdn-video-m-a.akamaihd.net/hvideo-ak-xfp1/v/t42.1790-2/11893124_999226066783806_1909334143_n.mp4?efg=eyJybHIiOjExMzksInJsYSI6NTEyfQ%3D%3D&rl=1139&vabr=633&oh=472bc6d3638070aeb63da6e240448af8&oe=55DFBF0A&__gda__=1440723017_3ada08398460d39e99c06d8ec6893fea
It doesn’t matter if almost all of the A-M accounts for females are fake if your girl comes up she had a real account. We’re talking women here. The NAWALT thing once again. Just think all modern women are sluts except for 20 women in each state. Every woman out there just clamed to be one of those twenty with a straight face.
I hope not
BPP – I think women actually are more aware of it than you’d like to think. It’s men that weren’t (or aren’t) as aware… that’s why so many go through such an ordeal when first discovering the Red Pill I think. It wrecks a man’s world.
For women… not so much, they’ve known it all along.
So then AM didn’t enable much cheating if most of the female accounts were fake. Men would be writing in, no meet up would happen. They’d try again, again no meet up. Okay one more try, still no dice. I find that hard to believe because the company would’ve been outed as a scam very shortly after it launched.
I told you so
Mickey has just discovered the NAWALT. That is some good mound reconstruction material. That hamster will be resting all snug and comfy tonight.
The NAWALT thing once again. Just think all modern women are sluts except for 20 women in each state. Every woman out there just clamed to be one of those twenty with a straight face.
Only 20? I used to think my state has at least 22. Too bad those two women I saw at the mall were lying…..
” Too bad those two women I saw at the mall were lying…..”
The were probably transwomen to boot.
” ….have three kids, one with special needs,”
Just reread that. Missed it the first time. It would be even more imperative for her not to be outed and the family not torn apart by divorce with a special needs child. Kids take divorce badly but special needs kids a thousand times more. If this was a made up story, the author knew all the right buttons.
Mickey Singh:
I confirmed you as a wimminz long before all the rest of these schmoes jumped on the bandwagon. I know that many of these guys are sorta slow, and you seem to think that you’re fooling many more. I’ll admit to a bit of grudging admiration with how easily you’re trolling so many here. Even so, I hope some of you brothers are learning a lesson, as “Mickey” (fuck’n lol) illustrates the futility of ever taking a wimminz seriously.
Anyway, “Mickey” … If you were smart you would…
…shut up, kook; nobody gave you permission to speak.
Regards,
Boxer
Boxer this stuff is really funny to watch.
… that’s why so many go through such an ordeal when first discovering the Red Pill I think. It wrecks a man’s world.
But answers so many questions.
And on a lighter note :
https://allthingsareyours.wordpress.com/2015/08/27/the-35-year-olds-just-in-time-marriage/
http://thesexycelibate.com/2013/11/07/its-okay-to-grieve/
Gosh, these women are in pain, if they can’t get married how I MEAN HOW will they qualify for a AM account thats free ??
Seriously, the poor things in these links.
Just a reminder, there’s a silver bullet that kills every troll every time. Just don’t reply, ignore it. Trolls feed on attention, especially hostile attention.
The female side of the A-M market is very real but it’s mostly women who will never actually consummate their indiscretions in person. I’ve dated online extensively and the dating sites are loaded with women that will chat endlessly, especially online but many never actually get around to meeting up in person. The women in many cases are getting what they want, male attention, validation, emotional connection etc. Some of them post pics that are a decade old, some of them post pics that aren’t even them. Most of it is fantasy, illusion, flirting, nothing.
I think part of the problem is that people think it’s kind of your choice that you have no family. That if you did things a certain way you would have a family. “You just need to be online dating.” “You just need to be less picky.” “You’re too strong of a woman and you scare off men.” And one that I heard on a thread about this topic the other day “You just need to lose more weight.”
As if we chose this lifestyle for ourselves. That’s just not true. We have worked to change this situation, and yet it hasn’t happened. It’s nothing that we did wrong, and we need to believe that.
I don’t know what to think about this woman… she goes on and on complaining, yet says she doesn’t want to be told to be grateful for the gift of singleness, or helped with practical advice to find a husband. These things are offensive to her.
I have friends living like this, and having watched their lives play out, the choices they’ve made, they really did constantly chose singleness over pursuing marriage. She’s trying to say it just happened to her, and maybe it did. But it was kind of in our face at the time because we were some of the only people we knew from our age group that married so young. Now that some of our still single friends are turning 30+, they are sounding at times, like this woman, and they seem just as depressed with life as she sounds in her post, have no purpose or tangible mission aside from their careers, crave a husband and children, and are unhappy. Some that I’ve known that are older (later 30’s) are actually bitter and super defensive about still being single. It’s like singleness can be toxic for a woman.
They literally have to watch the life they could have had pass them by via their friends’ social media I would presume. They grieve the life they feel they could never have.
Now that some of our still single friends are turning 30+, they are sounding at times, like this woman, and they seem just as depressed with life as she sounds in her post, have no purpose or tangible mission aside from their careers, crave a husband and children, and are unhappy. Some that I’ve known that are older (later 30’s) are actually bitter and super defensive about still being single. It’s like singleness can be toxic for a woman.
They literally have to watch the life they could have had pass them by via their friends’ social media I would presume. They grieve the life they feel they could never have.
Because they’ve been sold a false tale.
They were told that they could “have it all,” and that they could have everything they wanted without sacrifice, and that living like men would make them much happier.
All lies.
Whatever you want in this life, you have to position yourself for it, and you have to build it, and it’s going to require sacrifice or it won’t happen. So they’ve burned up their man-getting gifts, and they’ve burned up their man-getting years and don’t understand why their lives are unfolding as they are…..
…when that’s exactly what they chose. *smh*
Minesweeper, the links were hard to read. I think that women take singleness much harder then men. Sad, so sad for these women.
~Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, II 6.
( single never married women) ” crave a husband and children, and are unhappy. Some that I’ve known that are older (later 30’s) are actually bitter and super defensive about still being single. It’s like singleness can be toxic for a woman.”
Huh, whoa and sorry but thats just delicious to me. As a single never married man living life on easy street I feel as though I’ve won the lottery in life just by managing to stay single. When I see the drudgery in the lives of so many married men around me and often worse yet the divorced guys who’ve lost everything I feel very, very fortunate. It could of happened to me, nearly did a few times. There’s absolutely nothing to stop me from marrying now, it’s readily available to me but why? The average wife is a burden not a blessing and for a man the average marriage is something he would have been better off avoiding.
@dragon
The reality is that those unmarried by late 30’s have got some serious issues that render them unmarriageable. It must be agony for them on social media. But as you state it is almost all of their own making. I’ve seen the same. They have multiple issues lets just say while still holding to the “ideal” man that needs to come their way.
The reality is that they still haven’t hit bottom yet, Prepare yourself when they hit the menopause and their periods stop, so now its no husband and zero possibility of ever having their own kids. The little hope they had at this point vanishes into the other side of a black hole.
Strangely enough, singleness for a man seems to be liberating on a personal level alhtough your social circle is destroyed, for a woman seems to be exactly the opposite. They have a busy social life but the feel so trapped.
Strange.
Also strange how they miss the mark, its not hard for a woman generally.
Dont be a 1:frigid or 2:insane or 3:obese or 4:bitch or 5:unfortunately ugly
You’d be surprised how many women get hitched as long as they don’t hit all 5.
@embracingreality
I think at some stage women will have to acknowledge that they are both high risk and difficult to live with. All the major fallouts i’ve seen over the last few years were between women who were previously friends.
But for some reason, they seem to have got the idea that men and marriage is hard work. So they hold out until the golden unicorn appears as the bar is set waaayyy high.
Even in marriage though, women seem to have very high expectations of the relationship/ Like the chinese stock market, it seems a major adjustment is in order.
Maybe Dragon can explain why these women seem to regard themselves and their needs so highly and the men so low.
@dragon, DeNihilist – did you note one thing missing from those links ? Any mention of her being a loving supportive sexual partner, its ALL about them.
The lucky guy (if she found one) is just fulfilling a predetermined role that she has planned out for him. Like a childhood toy.
It’s easy over social media to decide why any particular single woman must be single still;
that she sets the bar too high for men –
that she wanted to ‘have it all’ and focused on her career –
heck, that she is ugly, self-centered, this that and the other thing.
I think, for most of the Christian women I know who are my single, most of the issue is that we were taught in our 20s that dating was wrong, it took our 30s to start to wake up to the fact that we were sold a bill of goods, and by then, it was really too late. Not completely too late, but fairly too late.
But any of you are welcome to meet me or any of a dozen single ladies I know in person, and find out that none of us are anything you have imagined of us. Most of these girls didn’t put some sort of career first, or think they wanted to ‘have it all” and some of them are downright drop dead gorgeous, others are normal, a few maybe are a bit homely – but the point is, none of the stereotypes fit. Just be taught that you aren’t allowed to date during your dating years, that if you faithfully do nothing at all but pray, God will send you a husband – and see what comes of it if you were dumb enough to buy into it.
http://www.amazon.com/Kissed-Dating-Goodbye-Joshua-Harris/dp/1590521358
I think women actually are more aware of it than you’d like to think. It’s men that weren’t (or aren’t) as aware… that’s why so many go through such an ordeal when first discovering the Red Pill I think.
This is backwards actually. Exceedingly few women understand their hypergamy beyond a superficial level, and it’s mostly down to evopsych reasons. As Deti has mentioned before, women live and breathe in the world of Apex Fallacy. Asking a woman to see and understand her hypergamy is like asking a fish to see and understand water.
Examples of this are abound. Even most red pill “aware” women in the ‘Sphere (a tiny subset of the female population already) struggle with something as simple as the 80/20 principle, or even FI. Susan Walsh famously mangled it, Sunshine angrily denied it. Ask any ordinary women and their reactions will range from confused expressions (think the way your dog looks at you when you try to feed it a grape) to angry denial, perhaps with “loser” accusations thrown in as well.
If women were even 10% aware of their hypergamy in the way red pill aware men are, you wouldn’t see such reactions. You wouldn’t see women reduced to tears over losing a bf that already had 10 other women chasing him, since she would rationally deduce that yep, “the odds were against me”. From an evolutionary standpoint, it is best for women to feel their hypergamy (i.e. know which men make her tingle), but not understand it. Understanding it too well, as opposed to giving in to “feelz” and rationalizing later, makes pursuit of things like AF/BB and cuckolding (often in her best interests genetically) less likely.
Anyone that is incapable of understanding hypergamy (and FI) is also incapable of understanding the path and direction of the current SMP. This includes the overwhelming majority of women. It also presents a large blind spot, as we see increasing numbers of women headed towards certain spinsterhood or a genetic dead end. An intelligent woman would observe the trend towards less and less male investment, and understand now is the time to lockdown a husband before SHTF. This is why 99% of women are going to be utterly shocked when the SMP shifts gears in the other direction, whereas comparatively fewer men will be. Dalrock’s analogy of the bear and the salmon is very apt for this reason.
@Boxer
Don’t pat yourself on the back too hard dude haha. At least a couple said it before you, and most of us were thinking it anyways.
The million dollar question is which “woman” is it? Insanity Bytes, Plain Jane, Michelle? Maybe they’re all the same person?
Minesweeper, yep, I kept thinking that she’s must have some condition, or thinks to highly of herself’s. But I have always had a soft spot for lost puppies, and feel for these ladies on a personal level.
As my first was to be born, I asked a pal what it was like to be there when his child was born. He said, “we’ll talk about it after yours is born.”
After mine was born, I saw him, we both just smiled. Never has a word been spoken of those events.
This is why I feel for her’s. That miracle of birth is, well, a miracle. (even if the wife is screaming, “get this fucking thing outta me!!!!”)
@Minesweeper:
I’ve yet to come across a Woman that’s “unfortunately ugly” that didn’t get there because of drugs. Even the acid-attack victims from Islamic countries (talk about the damage caused by impotent omega-rage) are still a lot better looking than trashy, obese sluts that have done a lot of meth. Granted, I know somewhere they exist, but it’s such a rare thing and not as disqualifying as one would think.
Granted, as a Christian, I would point out that any Woman that was “unfortunately ugly” could mitigate most of the issue by spending a lot of time with the Lord and correcting her Heart. A kind, gentle spirit will utterly change how a Woman is viewed. Mostly because it’ll come across through the eyes, which is what people actually focus on when looking at a face. A king, gentle spirit matched with weight under control will net a Woman a pretty solid Husband. But she has to be willing to do the work. Which is actually the problem we’re discussing.
On the links posted, I think it’s pretty dang clear the issue. Look at the blog title: “All Things are Yours”. It completely misses the point of the passage. She really should try the passages just before, as I think this gets the entire point across:
1 Corinthians 3:18-20 (ESV)
18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,” 20 and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.”
Me thinks the entire problem starts there.
@Heather G
So were you deceived ?
@Looking Glass, “A kind, gentle spirit matched with weight under control will net a Woman a pretty solid Husband.”
fixed it for you and yes, you are correct if they will still date 🙂
Yeah, I noticed on a third read that I typed a “g” instead of a “d”. Not quite sure how that happened, haha.
“Granted, as a Christian, I would point out that any Woman that was “unfortunately ugly” could mitigate most of the issue by spending a lot of time with the Lord and correcting her Heart. A kind, gentle spirit will utterly change how a Woman is viewed. Mostly because it’ll come across through the eyes, which is what people actually focus on when looking at a face. A king, gentle spirit matched with weight under control will net a Woman a pretty solid Husband. ”
I hear violins and see fairies. You can’t be serious with this fluff. Everyone knows that no amount of “kind, gentle spirit” is going to get a woman male attention if she doesn’t meet a threshold in physicality. Don’t fool yourself. You certainly aren’t fooling any men. And please don’t tell these lies to ugly women. Its just cruel.
Do you believe in “soulmates”?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=975800
Annulment?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=975803
It’s like singleness can be toxic for a woman.
With rare exceptions, singleness IS toxic for women. The longer a woman stays single the less desirable she becomes for marriage. This is just not a matter of age per se, but of the fact that, with prolonged singleness, she develops those characteristics that make her less and less desirable to manly men and less of those characteristics that make her desirable—like (in no particular order) being overly independent, being confrontational, being inflexible, being masculine, being self-sufficient, losing a sense of fashion, being less available to interact with men, having increased N counts, being less vulnerable to seduction by men, putting on weight, being less fertile, growing grey hairs, etc, etc.
A woman’s primary job on the planet is to physically attract a mate and give birth to the young, and part of this attraction is to be soft and responsive to her man. Everything in her body and mind is designed for that purpose. And that explains why she is most beautiful and most horny when she is fertile and responsive, and why her look matters. Ugly people don’t attract.
And a man’s primary job is to knock up the woman, protect his dependents and provide for them, and that is why his strength and performance are paramount, and his looks are not. Weak men can’t protect others, much less provide for them.
Feminists have their heads confused. They would be men, to their eternal detriment. But nobody messes with nature, and gets away with it. It is like smoke; you can’t keep it down forever.
@Mickey Singh
“A problem well stated is half solved” -Charles Kettering
“I hear violins and see fairies.”
That is what I’ve been telling you. Your thoughts on this matter are delusional, dysfunctional, destructive and immoral.
Paraphrasing Heather G: … [We all read] Joshua Harris… I Kissed Dating Goodbye.
I think I see part of the problem. A generation of Christians took marriage advice from a 21-year-old single guy. Why on Earth would anyone do that? There’s a good reason why Paul tells Timothy that novices are not to hold positions of authority in the church in 1 Timothy 3:6. And even then, people took what Harris wrote and turned it into a set of rules, which made it worse.
It’s unfortunate that so many people who ought to know better bought into that stuff. It’s basically legalism with big helping of the Prosperity Gospel – “If you just have enough faith, God will you shower you with temporal blessings” – applied to the quest for marriage. My Bible doesn’t say that, and it certainly doesn’t say that every girl is entitled to a 99th-percentile husband. As for your Christian girlfriends, they are probably not nearly as marriage-ready as you think they are. They’re all adult spinsters in 2015, how many of them are really willing to SUBMIT to an imperfect flesh-and-blood man? That means she agrees to go “All in” for the rest of her life. That means full support and zero challenges to his authority whether she likes it or not… whether she feels like it or not… whether she agrees or disagrees with his decisions… when she feels like saying, “I love you but I’m not in love with you”… or when she’s moody because she’s on her period, or when she’s bored, or angry, or feeling unfulfilled, or unhaaaaaaapy. It also means that she relinquishes control of her sexuality to her husband (there is no such thing as martial rape, by the way – it is literally an oxymoron). Any? If there are any left, how many of them are actual virgins? And I’m not interested in hearing about “that one time,” or “when I was vulnerable,” or how “I was in love.” Then, if there are any left after that, how many are fat? Being fat is a choice (or rather, a series of choices). Anyone with a BMI over 25 is fat, unless she’s very athletic. If you have such a unicorn among your friends, ask her if she thinks a wife should have the right to divorce her husband for anything other than adultery (and even that is debatable). Anything other than an emphatic “NO!” means she’s a closet feminist. (Inb4: that does not preclude physical separation for the duration of no-BS actual physical danger.) There: a mere four criteria. If you can get honest answers (without equivocation) from your girlfriends you will likely find that all of them are risky candidates for marriage. Franky, any woman past the age of 30 who meets all those criteria who is not married has chosen that path. And if she chose that path because she took marriage advice from a 21-year-old single guy, she can simply reject it today and be married within 18 months if she wants to be, BUT she needs to get very “red-pill-real” about what she’s bringing to the table herself so she can be honest with herself about what she can get now. And if she can’t be content with the older middle-management guys with thinning hair that are now her peers in the marriage market, then she needs to understand that it her choice to remain single from that point forward.
^ Martial? Sure there is! Marital? Here I would agree.
Something funny and not too off topic. MGTOW
Addendum to my last post:
I wrote, “Franky, any woman past the age of 30 who meets all those criteria who is not married has chosen that path. And if she chose that path because she took marriage advice from a 21-year-old single guy, she can simply reject it today and be married within 18 months if she wants to be, BUT she needs to get very “red-pill-real” about what she’s bringing to the table herself so she can be honest with herself about what she can get now. And if she can’t be content with the older middle-management guys with thinning hair that are now her peers in the marriage market, then she needs to understand that it is her choice to remain single from that point forward.”
I assume that HeatherG is the same as Heather Goodman, whose blog “Allthingsreyours” Minesweeper linked to earlier. I’d like to examine the last paragraph of the linked article:
Although most if what she said in the article was good, her conclusions expressed in this final part are problematic. Some of her friends lucked out. That’s all to the good – even a blind squirrel finds the occasional acorn. Some settled for the guys they ignored when they were younger. That’s no surprise: the women aren’t as desirable as they used to be when they could command more male attention, so they smartened up and took what they could get before their options got even worse or disappeared entirely. I feel sorry for the guys, because in all likelihood they are paying full price for what the girls gave away for free when what they had was worth a lot more. Sadly, AF/BB is alive and well in the church. Some left the faith, which means that they were never good prospect to begin with, because their Christianity was paper-thin.
The next part is a curious combination of weasel-words and double-think. I’ll repeat it here, “they are still with him (Jesus) but in what most Christians would consider sinful sexual relationships with nonchristian guys.” Now wait a minute… how can HeatherG consider them to be Christians when they are whoring around? And what’s with “Most Christians would consider…”? The morality of fornication is not open to discussion where people’s “considerations” matter: it is unequivocally condemned in Scripture. And why would any Christian man choose a wife from among “Christian” women who fornicate with their unsaved lovers? Each of those women – Every. Last. One. Of. Them – has declared by her actions that she does not want or deserve a Christian husband. Cry me a river that she can’t find a top-tier Christian guy willing to risk his livelihood and children’s future on a woman who is even now bed-hopping.
As for the rest, with “no choices” who are “crying out”… they DO have choices, although they may not like the ones that are left. In any case, they can always make themselves more marriageable and make the pursuit of a husband a priority. I did a guest article on another blog that’s related to this topic.
https://unmaskingfeminism.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/guest-post-potential-wife-value-and-the-good-man-store-by-lyn87/
But sitting around hoping for Prince Charming to fall from the sky is a long shot. These women could spend the next six months on a crash-course of self-improvement. At the end of that they could tell all their friends to tell all of their friends to all spread the word around their churches that they will accept at least one date with any Christian man looking for marriage… then follow through on it. If she hasn’t found anyone she’s crazy about within six months, she at least knows where she stands in the marriage market. At that point she either 1) picks the best one to date and proposes to him (then goes ALL IN like I wrote earlier) or 2) recognizes that she’s chosen to remain single… and comes to peace with her choice. Given a few months to put together a no-frills wedding, and any of those women could be married to a man in her league within 18 months of right now if she wants to be.
@Lyn87:
18 months? 12 months, if we’re being honest.
It’s all about personal responsibility, truly. But that’s what none of them want. They want someone else to bail them out of their life.
Following up a little on Lyn’s post, I think it’s important to remember why they push so hard for Women to not look for a Husband, ever. Once a Woman takes that type of responsibility for herself, she will, in fact, change the entire course her life will take. And that simply isn’t “acceptable” to the current culture. Because anything that doesn’t conform to the current culture has to be “wrong”.
Further, taking responsibility will only highlight how foolish the current generations of Women have acted. Making all of the “sisters” look like blithering idiots is, again, unacceptable. And we simply can’t have Women seeing the stark contrast between their actions and the results. Heaven forefend!
Lastly, taking responsibility also obliterates the ability to hide from the consequences of the results. Being unable to play the “I don’t have moral agency” game is anathema to the modern Woman. Because nothing is ever should be expected of a Woman. Several generations of misers. Fascinating that.
LG,
Since the average American women in her 30’s is overweight, she’s going to need some time to get her act together before she goes husband-hunting. Six months is enough time for the average girl to get to a normal, healthy weight, grow her hair out out a bit, get her tattoos removed, read a CLASSIC book or two on how to be feminine, hone (or, let’s be honest, acquire) her cooking skills, and get some clothes that will attract dads rather than cads. No matter what sort of condition she’s in now, six months of hard work in “Femininity 101” is enough time to get a whole lot better than she is… which gives her more and better options when her hunt begins. I read an article about choosing and statistical probability a while ago that concluded that people who have a relatively small number of choices end up happier with their choices than people who have a lot of options. That’s why I gave her six months to go hunting. If she accepts all offers from marriage-minded men for first dates for six months, she will meet a few guys who are at or near the top of her eligibility pool (men who have similar MMV as her). Additional searching will probably not reveal better options, but will occupy precious time. At that point the men she’s seen include the top tier of men she has a chance to get, so she has a decision to make: rank order the ones she can live with and start proposing to them starting at the top until she gets a “Yes,” or come to grips with the fact that she waited too long, and the men who are now her peers are not acceptable to her, because she is not good enough for any man she would find acceptable. Either way, she can stop pining and get on with her life in peace.
That’s 12 months to get the best deal she’s ever likely to see in her lifetime from that point forward. Another six months to reel him in and have the wedding get sus to 18 months on the outside (it could be less). Eighteen months is the most it should take her: my wife and I got married only 102 days after we met on a blind date, but she was a feminine, virginal hottie who had just turned 20 and was looking to marry.
Heather G – Are you saying that you were asked out on dates by men you were attracted to, and turned them down because you were taught that dating was wrong?
IKDG is not terrible reading for high schoolers, but it’s a terrible book to base your 20’s dating philosophy on.
Oh Mickey you’re so blind
You’re so blind you blow our minds
Hey Mickey! Hey Mickey!
Oh Mickey you’re so blind
You’re so blind you blow our minds
Hey Mickey! Hey Mickey!
Oh Mickey, what a pity you don’t understand
You blow it when you say that you don’t need no man.
Oh Mickey, you’re so shallow, can’t you understand
It’s gals like you Mickey
Oh, what you do Mickey, do Mickey
Don’t think too hard, Mickey
You’ve been around the blog and that’s a little long
You think you’ve got the right but we think you’ve got it wrong
Why can’t you say goodnight and take your bullshit home, Mickey?
Oh Mickey you’re so blind
You’re so blind you blow our minds
Hey Mickey! Hey Mickey!
@ Dalrock
An interesting story about Hypergamy backfiring on a woman.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2263518/I-left-love-life-I-thought-I-better-Now-Im-childless-42.html
@Lyn87
Its all about market economics, they all raised the prices (no dates before marriage) at the same time the law was being expanded to jail a man who farts in the wrong direction for being domestically abusive.
Add into that if you can’t date you can’t judge risk. So the risk levels for these women are sky high and there isn’t a get to know the option out before you buy.
Glad you got a good one, I got her evil twin 🙂 your lucky I took her off your hands for you.
A big thing as well with the whole don’t date crap, was the usual undercurrent of women are priceless angelic darlings, only worthy of a man who will climb the heights to obtain her, the men are cave dwelling drooling neanderthals with very little value who can barely use a knife and fork.
The fact some idiot pedestalizing feminist managed to subvert a whole legion of vulnerable women, just says it all really.
I can’t decide whether these comments are horrific or hilarious. You are so willing to make assumptions and judgments about girls you never met – ladies who spent their entire lives following conservative Christian ideals about marriage, and yes, about sex – following a book like “I kissed dating goodbye” was definitely not something that feminists are into. Where do you get out of that the gals I’m talking about think divorce is ok, or that they’re not virgins anymore (yes, there are some girls I know that have given up now, but guess what? They’re not overweight, nor ugly, nor anything that you guys think they must be.) It is amazing to see how willing you folks are to skewer women in the abstract, though.
As for me, yes, I’ve opted out now. That doesn’t mean that I am not a virgin (I am, actually) nor that I think divorce is acceptable (I don’t, actually, except for adultery or outright physical abuse) but you can definitely call me a feminist if you want, because while I am into the idea of submitting to a husband, I don’t believe in some Saudi Arabia “you must never question the man” type of crap. But I once did…so this is not why I’m not married.
But I’ll tell you what else – the body of Christ is much bigger than this conservative world you guys are coming from, and there are plenty of women who get married in all sorts of churches that believe much more in egalitarianism. So to say a woman wouldn’t get married if she has even the faintest bit of feminism in her is ridiculous, because every day many many women do. What you guys can’t handle is hearing that women followed the same exact advice that you guys are dispensing here and ended up single right up into their mid thirties or fourties before deciding, perhaps too late, that this type of advice just didn’t work for them. Actually, that’s not even true – most of them are still going strong taking all your advice to heart.
At any rate, I’m not going to keep commenting here because this comment stream is particularly ugly and nasty and I just don’t want to be part of it. So – have fun skewering me behind my back some more. But you guys aren’t representing Christ at all by deciding to condemn women you haven’t even met for crimes you think that they must somehow be committing that you have no evidence for, simply because they aren’t married.
Nuff said.
So when women “give up” and “opt out,” we should presume that it’s because these women are just too good for the degenerate suitors out there?
@heatherG
In the discussion what helps if you state who you are addressing and also quote what they said, that way, amongst the dozens of comments we can try to understand what you are talking about.
Its sad… to say that the church focuses too much on marriage and parenting, and not at all on the value or difficulty of singleness, is probably correct in some ways. BUT this girl is completely undervaluing how important marriage and raising children IS to the CHURCH and SOCIETY. She says (or maybe it was one of the long bitter comments) that the church idolizes the Family.
Hello! The FAMILY is what builds society. It is what MAKES a society. Raising children that are healthy and GODLY and strong are yes, the focal point of a church. I’m sorry its painful for you, go out into the world (even in your own city) and do God’s work as a single. You have MORE TIME, MORE RESOURCES, MORE FREE ENERGY AND MONEY FREED UP simply BECAUSE you are single. Stop pitying yourself and do something for God’s kingdom instead.
Marriage is not easy or without its own set of difficulties, as people tried to point out in your comment section, its almost as if you and your single population you preach to, are idolizing marriage yourselves. Or trying to say its not that important.
Marriage and family is important. It’s been being attacked for a few decades now by the Marxists feminists for a reason – because attacking the family (marriage) attacks and eventually breaks down society. Single people do not build a society, they can contribute a lot by going out and being productive, but they are not building the future unless they’re specifically teachers and ministers. AND EVEN THEN we’ve seen that teachers and ministers only have so much affect on our kids… the major affect on the children? THEIR PARENTS.
I’m sorry, parenting is a more important and effective job. Maybe that’s why the church preaches so much on getting it right. It’s not only ensuring the future of the church body itself, but productive strong adults who will in turn produce MORE productive strong adults thus furthering (what is supposed to be) a great next generation.
Even Mother Theresa had severe grief and depression and emotional pain… but she used it productively. She said that it helped her to feel closer to the people she would then GO OUT and minister to.
If you are stuck in singleness, you need to be going out, not staying stagnant and writing self-pitying books or posts on how hard your life is.
Heather G, I’ll repeat and hope you stay around to answer: Did you have opportunities in your 20’s that you decided not to take because of the “no dating” teaching you received? I’m curious about what your life would have looked like if you didn’t buy into the teaching.
You see! Your comments are ugly and nasty. I had never heard of IKDG but I too decided to give up dating: I would give any woman twenty-four hours and that was it; frequently of course she did not even get all twenty-four. What was the point? Dating meant being messed around. The odd thing was that my then new-found approach seemed to make women all the keener, and of course I was shamed for being a bastard – that was from the men who were of course doubling-down on white-knighting. As for the women they also thought I was bastard but that was expressed in between sobs and tears – they are all of course happily married now, so not only was no harm done but I did them a favour.
Do Americans know how to use a knife and fork? I don’t think so, for after cutting into the steak, they then transfer the fork from the left to the right hand in the process putting down the knife. What’s wrong with using the left Hand!
I also saw tons of ridiculous comments on her blog about Paul’s teachings on singleness being disregarded by the church. That it should be more important and better than marriage.
It is only more important and better than marriage in the context in which Paul was writing… to GO OUT and affect your world (could even be in your same city), that’s what he was saying, that it is better in that specific way, to focus on the things God puts on your heart.
Married people can’t do that very easily, so the church DEPENDS on singles to do so. The church also DEPENDS on married couples and families to be producing the next generation of strong, believers who further not only the kingdom of God, but further society and produce MORE families. It really is about the ability to create more children. It’s a completely different task than what you have as a single, and comparing yourself constantly to it isn’t good or healthy. We are members of the body, and have to work together valuing each other and our unique roles… you comparing singleness to marriage, and saying that marriage isn’t that important, that parenting isn’t that important, just causes strife and division (and is offensive because it’s so blatantly wrong).
@heatherG, as I said earlier re: pedestalizing idiot:
http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/230027-i-kissed-dating-goodbye-new-attitude-toward-romance-and-relationship
“A Woman’s Question
Do you know you have asked for the costliest thing
Ever made by the Hand above?
A woman’s heart, and a woman’s life—
And a woman’s wonderful love.
Do you know you have asked for this priceless thing
As a child might ask for a toy?
Demanding what others have died to win,
With a reckless dash of boy.
You have written my lesson of duty out,
Manlike, you have questioned me.
Now stand at the bars of my woman’s soul
Until I shall question thee.
You require your mutton shall always be hot,
Your socks and your shirt be whole;
I require your heart be true as God’s stars
And as pure as His heaven your soul.
You require a cook for your mutton and beef,
I require a far greater thing;
A seamstress you’re wanting for socks and shirts—
I look for a man and a king.
….”
/vomit
I really don’t want to engage anymore on this thread, but Dragonfly I am confused if it’s my blog you are refering to…because never have I called marriage an idol of the church, nor disparaged it, nor have I said anything remotely akin to “parenting isn’t that important.” Perhaps you are talking about someone else’s blog.
But one other thing – it takes maybe a half hour to write a blog post, and if someone writes a blog post about unwanted singlehood, how can you extrapolate from that that “all they do is complain about their singlehood and never serve others” or somesuch? If you think myself or the women I am talking about who are single do not by and large involve themselves in all sorts of ministry and service to others, you have once again made some sort of sweeping negative judgment about people you don’t know, one that in this case would be patently false.
Ok, i’ve said my peace. This really will be my last comment here.
@Minesweeper:
Since the Harris book was published in ’97, I was around the youth group scene at that point, in conservative Christian spheres. I honestly don’t recall it barely getting more than a mention until I heard about it during college, so a good 5+ years later. Neil Clark Warren’s book was the big one going around at that time. At least in most of the circles I knew of.
So it really always had little to do with Harris. The cultural environment among Christians was in full-on doubling down on the Blue Pill. Using false notions of the “old ways” to create something practical. It was knowing there is a problem, yet completely lacking the Wisdom to understand how to address it. And a lot of us saw the damage. It was responding to the World with the World’s thinking. That went badly.
@Heather G:
I see we nailed things pretty dang close. Which isn’t surprising, as you’re playing in a realm that deals with Humans as they are, not as you want to invent them to be. But we also understand what brutality the truth brings to the minds of those that encounter it. The reaction tends to go badly at first, but if you stick around to learn, you’ll probably get more angry at yourself more than anything else.
As for your friends, well, we simply know the “lay of the land”. We have plenty of understanding of how quickly a Woman can get married that actually puts even a modicum of effort into it, on the assumption she has a clue of her own standing for attracting Men. We also know that Josh Harris has little to do with it. It has everything to do with overwhelming pride and selfishness. Harris just provided a cover to act as part of the World, while claiming to not be. And we know that those that aren’t married are in that position by a long set of choices, not the inability to find a Husband. (With some very, very rare exceptions.)
As for the advice you’ll find around these parts (with some exception due to trolls), it isn’t anything like you’ve been given. It’d actually work, but it would take proper self-reflection to implement. Though we understand you’re highly unlikely to actually undertake what is necessary, which is your loss.
Lastly, if you’re going to pull out an invented strawman argument, at least have the wherewithal to know that most of us have actually read what is required of Wives by God. It’s not much and not that difficult, but it does take work. Which, hopefully, shouldn’t be surprising to a Christian: it’s a narrow road, after all. Something you and your friends really need to learn to understand. Not learning that risks paying the ultimate price.
Sorry, but flouncing for the second time just doesn’t have the same drama as the first drive-by tirade.
@heatherG, aww don’t take your ball and go home.
Here and maybe only here will you find the answers to where you have gone wrong and how to correct course. You’ve listened to the same flawed teachings for decades now,maybe its time for a change.
On this site there is wisdom, it will be hard for you to swallow. The truth always is.
“We also know that Josh Harris has little to do with it. It has everything to do with overwhelming pride and selfishness. Harris just provided a cover to act as part of the World, while claiming to not be. And we know that those that aren’t married are in that position by a long set of choices, not the inability to find a Husband. (With some very, very rare exceptions.)”
^^I also read I Kissed Dating Goodbye by Joshua Harris… it did affect me for a year or two, but then I decided it was nuts to court instead of date, and got married at 20 to my husband. Reading that book might be an excuse for making bad choices and passing up marriageable men, but it still means you chose to make those choices and hold yourself up higher (or more righteous than people who dated and got married younger. I knew a few people who looked down on us for getting married so young, people in our age group… even saying we were “just settling.” Where are they now? Single, nearing or over 30, no kids, no husband, and their life is barren.
The girls that got married early **that they looked down upon*** are now the women they want to be.
Based on the current and ongoing state of marriage and courtship, churches are going to have a lot more long-term and lifelong single congregants. And if these churches still think that fornication is a sin, I guess they will have to instruct some of their single congregants about reconciling themselves to lifetime celibacy.
(Though I hear a lot of Churchian places have a “see-no-evil” policy on this, especially with the poor heroic single mothers who must have been in love.)
Heather wants to make it abundantly clear that NAWALT. Of course no one here is taking the bait. Those that proclaim it loudest are inevitably the worst offenders.
“Opting-out” is the worst possible thing a woman can do at this stage in her life. Don’t assume marriage will be there for the taking when you inevitably “opt-in” five years later. You and your friends are a school of Salmon swimming downstream to where the Bears are patiently waiting and licking their lips.
@ Dragonfly
BUT this girl is completely undervaluing how important marriage and raising children IS to the CHURCH and SOCIETY.
She is looking at a single life now. Of course she will devalue marriage and children. Ex post facto hamsterizing.
This site is a hard one for Blue Pillers to accept. Not surprised Heather doesn’t want to interact any more. The shiv isn’t wrapped in napkins. It goes in hard and comes out bloody.
Heather should probably read The Rationale Male to get an idea about today’s marriage market. Then all of Dalrock’s posts, ignoring the comments. Finally, Married Man Sex Life’s early book. On my blog, my post about Sexual Macrodynamics and my post about Managing Relationships as well. Our dear Opus has kindly opined on my post about Sexual Macrodynamics that it’s the best essay that he’s seen on the topic.
About Managing Relationships–I’m still going out solo on weekend nights (I now take Mrs. Gamer out every other Sat. night as well as week nights) and I’ve been married over 30 years and our marriage is very happy going on the second month now. So maybe I have something helpful to say about managing relationships.
On the subject of dating: I cannot forget what one of my English teachers said to us in class when I was seventeen or eighteen: he had recently married a presentable female who could be seen sometimes driving up the long College drive – a SAHM without children – in her Morris Minor. He said that when it came to marriage that really there was little choice. As he put it, there were only two or three possibilities and he chose one of those. At seventeen I thought this quite awful. I wanted a choice and that choice would by default include all the best looking women my imagination could conjure-up. I still think my teacher is wrong but not because I think there are more than two or three choices, but because there is not even that. Usually there is (at any one time) only one possibility and like iron filings meeting a magnet the die is cast (to horribly mix metaphors).
It would seem that in the Twenty-First century in Urban centers there is now, amazingly, a massive choice, as women are simply failing to marry in their twenties and cannot marry in their thirties. With such a large choice, however, where is the incentive for a man? Those who are in their twenties won’t and those who are older are getting towards or have passed their sell-by date. I am not sure, which of the two situations (my English Teacher’s or the present situation) is the worse.
@Dragonfly:
That’s the thing about IKDG: Women don’t pattern their lives after a fad. It was just that, a fad. They come and go and, while they can do damage, almost no one would be still holding to the teaching after a decade. I’ve yet to meet people that foolish: minus hardcore Marxists.
One to 2 years, like for yourself, is about normal for one of those fads that runs its course. It obviously doesn’t work, so self-interest will take over for from ideological purity. That’s just the way Humans operate. Which if why I said it’s simply a cover for Pride. Though maybe Vanity is sub-set it is better understood as. Though that’s why things like this have some staying power, as they really work to fluff the vanity of the self-entitled princesses. And that makes a LOT of money.
Reading that book might be an excuse for making bad choices and passing up marriageable men, but it still means you chose to make those choices
Most women don’t want to admit that they made a choice. This is true for teenaged girls who “somehow” wind up pregnant, and it’s true for 20-something watchers of the cock-carousel who keep snubbing the good man because he’s not the perferct man.
Our latest drive by gynocentrist needs to be told the brutal truth: if she and her friends intentionally set out to find a husband, they can find one in 12 to 18 months. I’ve seen it.
I have been to several weddings this year, so when I write “I’ve seen it” I mean exactly that. Recent college grads, upper 20’s approaching the Wall, I’ve seen it.
Some matches were difficult – the 20-something single woman with a bastard child who really was abandoned by the man who was supposed to marry her, for example – and it took intentional work on the woman’s part via sites like eHarmony, etc. to even have a hope of getting a match. And yes, that woman married a man. That man’s wife had cheated on him and run off with another man. So both of them are a bit damaged. And both of them are churchgoing. And both of them, having seen how bad other people can be, seem quite determined to be loyal and good to each other. They are still together, and have had at least one child of their own.
But that woman had to eat some humble pie, admit that single mothers are beggars who can’t be choosers, and lower her sights a bit from the perfect man to a good enough man.
I hope I’m not being too subtle, here.
More generally, women like to pretend that things “just happened”, that certainly they didn’t make a choice, in all stages of life. It’s part of the Female Imperative, and it goes along with hidden estrus and physical dimorphism. It’s not just true for Suzy Sweetcheeks in the back of Roddy’s band van, either, it’s true for middle aged women who have basically “married” their children to the exclusion of what’s his name, it’s true for aging women who choose to treat their men like a child. None of these things “just happen”, they are the result of choices made by a woman.
But admitting that “I chose to let Roddy Rockbandrummer get me alone and into my panties”? Admitting that “I chose to pour all of my affection and attention onto toddlers and scorn & reject my till-death-do-us-part roommate“? Admitting that “I fancy myself a wise woman now that I don’t menstruate and know all about his failings, so he should shut up and obey me”?
Not for a nanosecond. Because women in the natural state will never admit anything. They must be taught to own their shit.
The whole “special snowflake” culture of the last, what, 20 years or longer has done tremendous damage to men and women in different ways. And churches not only weren’t immune to it, most of them seem to have embraced it.
That’s the ugly reality single women need to deal with: they were oh so special for a while, but that wears off, and choices have consequences. Men learn about choices and consequences from an early age. Women? Not so much.
@theasdgamer:
“Ex post facto hamsterizing” – we should have started using that term ages ago. It’s great. 🙂
@AR:
I’m reminded that I don’t think I’ve mentioned that I actually know of a true story of a Christian Wife running off with “F**kbuddy Rockbanddrummer”. Rockbanddrummer also happened to play in the worship band at the church. Only “good” point would seem to have been the foolish Woman didn’t take the Husband to the cleaners. She was in full “I’m Free!” mode.
Still, when I first heard the story, I had a hard time not laugh because, well, it was the Rockbanddrummer.
Looking Glass, Deti didn’t make up that name at random, y’know, he had his reasons.
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
@AR:
I know, but it wasn’t even the worship band leader. It was actually the drummer, haha. Granted, a bunch of innocent children had their live’s blown up by a rabid Woman. But it’s hard not to laugh a little about it.
I am not advocating the “Kissed Dating Goodbye” book. I can’t even remember if I’ve ever looked through it. Nevertheless, my thoughts are as follows. Allowing daughters to date is like sending them out unprotected into a forest laden with booby traps, landmines, and prowling wolves. One or two success stories does not counter the multitude of crash and burns that we have all witnessed.
IMO courtship makes a lot more sense. Even arranged marriages make more sense than dating. Women need the protection of their fathers and later their husbands. Look at how insane women have become after that protection was removed. Yes, for you feminist lurkers, I am saying that women need men to protect females from themselves. It’s been made clear that they cannot do it on their own.
Looking Glass – ” Men learn about choices and consequences from an early age. Women? Not so much.”
I have to add, nowadays, boys not so much either. When in school many years ago, you learned consequences when you stole the older guys basketball, it was a bloody nose! Now, you can’t even take a Super hero lunch box to school!
JDG – Whoa there brother! If’n you follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, you’ll soon be saying that women need men to INSTRUCT them on how to make sammiches!
If the world ever comes to that, I am moving into my cave!
… you’ll soon be saying that women need men to INSTRUCT them on how to make sammiches!
Their mothers ought to be able to teach them that, but these days we may as well head on over to the caves.
I would have thought a wonder woman lunch box would have been welcomed in today’s school environments. It’s the boy with the superman lunch box I would have expected to be sent home. Times they are a changing.
It’s obvious to me that Heather’s penultimate “I quit” post was directed at my comments at August 28, 2015 at 4:54 am
and 6:39 am, since they followed within a short time and she seemed to be responding to me more-or-less point-by-point.
I have no idea why any Christian would find any of what I wrote in the least bit controversial, much less “hilarious” or “horrific.” A couple of generations ago nobody would have batted an eyelash at any of it. But Heather is keen to gild her friends (a bunch of virtuous women that includes some marriage-minded “drop-dead gorgeous” virgins), whitewash their self-imposed situations (including some not-quite-so-virginal ones who are Christians yet somehow currently riding the carousel only because there aren’t enough good men in the churches, of course), and absolve them of all adult responsibility for their lack of husbands (they were misled by a fad-book written when they were children).
But it’s less risky to attack caricatures of my arguments than address the real issues I brought up, so she pretended that her friends actually are virtuous, slender, and stridently anti-divorce (except for when they’re not, natch). Perhaps they are… but the odds are very long that Heather’s description of her friends are Grade-A Prime Bride-Stock is… somewhat exaggerated. In any case, we here know what HeatherG seems to not know: a very large percentage of single women who present themselves as Heather describes her friends are latent feminists who are high risks for marriage. Many ostensibly Christian women will use threatpoint, sex rationing, allegations of “abuse,” and unbiblical calls for egalitarian marriage once the knot is tied – with the blessing of the church. A woman has incredible power in a marriage with both the state and the church acting as her proxy enforcers, so “I know where to find an entire flock of unicorns that missed the marriage train through no fault of their own – trust me” is rightly met with skepticism. We, or men we know, have danced to this tune before, and many have paid a terrible price. Many such women are not actual virgins, but rather “born-again virgins” who have not owned their decisions to fornicate and have compromised or lost their ability to pair-bond with their unfortunate future-ex husbands. Also, as Dave noted at 3:21, the longer a woman waits to marry (and Heather’s friends are spinsters by any rational definition), the harder time they have adjusting to the role of submissive wife… even if they haven’t screwed around (…much?…). Just the inertia of being independent for years is likely to make a woman strive for headship (as it says in Genesis 3 – part of Eve’s curse), often under the guise of “equal partnership” – as if such a thing was possible.
Due to DH’s health/aging problems (he’s 17 years older than me and let’s just say that I’m over 50 myself), I have been celibate for almost 10 years. He has cancer now. From a Christian perspective, we made vows to each other for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health. What do people think that “sickness” means, do they think it means enduring a few days while their spouse has the flu? Sure, sex is important in marriage, but at least partly as an expression of our love and commitment, not “since we’re married, it’s the court of last resort”. I love my husband, and am committed to him, and part of that commitment means that the most intimate thing we could ever, did ever, share, is reserved to him alone, because it means more than the rutting of animals in heat, it means the two of us being one. I can’t be “one” with another man when I’m one with my husband, or I never really was one with him, and sex within our marriage never meant more than scratching an itch in which case anyone would do.
@ JDG
Women need the protection of their fathers and later their husbands
This has an element of Blue Pill thinking in it. Let’s correct this.
“Women need to be corralled by their fathers and later their husbands.”
The problem is Hypergamy, not da evil menz. Not “protection”.
This may be one of my most important comments along this line.
Mrs. Gamer was corralled by her father when she was being educated. No land line in the home (this was before cell phones). Her education was coed. No boyfriends were allowed and no going out with friends. Any boys that came calling had to face the father first, which generally meant being ignored. Boys were afraid of her father. Mrs. Gamer had one boyfriend after she went into the workforce and hadn’t even French kissed when we met. She had only kissed him on the lips. Mrs. Gamer had an excellent relationship with her father and he understood Hypergamy. Mrs. Gamer was able to corral herself after she went into the workforce as a single woman. She only went out in groups (until she and I met).
The key is to base plans on the reality of Hypergamy, the responsive female libido, and the maturation of the female brain around age 24.
1) Fathers corral daughters until either their husbands corral them or they can corral themselves
2) Educate daughters about their own libido–especially its responsive nature
3) Encourage daughters to marry early
Lyn87 says:
August 28, 2015 at 12:16 pm
Lyn87 it is truly a state of affairs that what you write is exactly what I see happening in different parts of the country. Most (but not all) church goers that I have encountered over the last two decades have had issues with following the whole council of God as given in the Bible. When I have confronted people with scriptures (in context), they often retort with straw men, anecdotal accounts, and the “wisdom” of the world (what ever is popular at that time).
Rachel, the mainstream media is constantly reminding us men of how horrible we all are.
Just yesterday I was reading The Argonaut, a local general interest newspaper. Sure enough, one of the stories was about a high school coach who has made “respect for women” part of his training of male high school athletes: http://argonautnews.com/coaching-boys-into-men/
From the article:
Venice High School alumnus Miguel Perez, who played football under Gasca’s leadership, approached administrators with a game plan to teach sexual violence prevention as part of the school’s storied athletics programs. Six months later, they’re putting that plan into action.
While preparing his varsity Gondoliers for Friday night’s season opener vs. the Granada Hills Highlanders, Gasca is also implementing the first week of “Coaching Boys into Men,” a curriculum designed to help coaches talk to their players about showing verbal and physical respect for others — especially women.
Weekly discussion topics include preventing disrespectful behavior toward women and girls both in person and online, understanding sexual consent, communicating personal boundaries, leaving aggression on the field and promoting gender equality. The lessons culminate in a coach-and-player pledge to “take a stand against relationship abuse” and “publicly denounce violence against women and girls.”
Unfortunately, the mainstream media is devoid of comparable articles taking women to task for their wrongdoing.
Both JDG and theadsgamer have rightly pointed out that modern dating is fraught with peril…hormones and under-developed brains are a bad combination for couples in physical isolation. But the “courting” fad just replaced one iffy idea with a different one. Every set of parents I knew that wanted their kids to “court” had two things in common: 1) they had dated themselves, and 2) they were control freaks.
In the final analysis, people are going to do what they’re going to do, and the courting fad probably didn’t stop many illicit rendezvous. It may even have prompted some as kids rebelled against the “creepiness factor” of having their parents so intimately involved in their every interaction with the opposite sex. Case in point: although I came of age before “courting” became all the rage among evangelicals, having grown up as a Preacher’s Kid (PK) and seeing people’s reaction to that fact, I know that many people just assume that PK’s are the wildest of the wild… because many of us are. The pressure to be “the example” can be significant, and too many preachers think that their entire families are called to the full-time ministry when in fact, only they are. Couple that with the fact that PK’s see their parents when they aren’t in church, and hewing to the line can seem like being an accomplice to hypocrisy. Whether one is a PK or the child of “Courting” parents; if you squeeze a balloon on one end, the other end bulges out. Squeeze it hard enough and it pops. My parents, although imperfect as we all are, at least understood that keeping my brother and me on lock-down would have been both unfair and likely counterproductive, so they didn’t do it. We went to movies, on dates, and to (gasp!) dances, sometimes to the horror of congregants, who occasionally needed to be told take a big spoonful of mind-your-own-business.
@Lyn87.
Great posts. I was one of those women who got my act together. It helps to have older women impart this wisdom. I started the job I have now at 25 and my boss (who is in her 50s, never married) told me “if you want to be married, you’d better start putting some effort into it now.” I took her words to heart. I bumbled around for a year or two before I came up with a definitive plan of action (as has been discussed on this blog before, there is a difficult path toward marriage now for young women). I’m glad I found this blog and I’ve shared some of Dalrock’s posts with both female and male friends.
I’m in a wonderful relationship now. We met at the beginning of the year, been dating for 7 months and we’re talking about marriage and looking at rings. So it can happen. I have another coworker who said “it just happened for you.” I told her no it didn’t; I was very intentional about finding a husband and I deliberately put myself in places where I could meet eligible men. So I was bound to meet some; it was up to me to pray and observe the man’s character. Women just need to admit that they are very calculating when it comes to pursuing men and relationships anyway and quit all this “it just happened” nonsense.
Since the average American women in her 30’s is overweight, she’s going to need some time to get her act together before she goes husband-hunting. Six months is enough time for the average girl to get to a normal, healthy weight, grow her hair out out a bit, get her tattoos removed, read a CLASSIC book or two on how to be feminine, hone (or, let’s be honest, acquire) her cooking skills, and get some clothes that will attract dads rather than cads. No matter what sort of condition she’s in now, six months of hard work in “Femininity 101” is enough time to get a whole lot better than she is… which gives her more and better options when her hunt begins.
Absolutely UNACCEPTABLE advice. You realize, don’t you, that your advice demands that women accept responsibility for their own lives and futures and, most repulsive of all, put forth effort to bring about change? The average single American woman under the age of 40, even –especially– “Christian” ones, would sooner be gang-raped by syphilitic Mongols and staked to die a slow, agonizing death in the blazing desert.
Glenn Greenwald is gay and I am 100% sure he understands the implications of leaking private sexual information, even is Ashley Madison is oriented for straight users ( I am assuming). A lot of gays maintain the position that outing other gays is perfectly OK if the person doing the outing is gay and the person being outed has a political or philosophical position different that the gay mafia. They will usually claim it is due to that person being a hypocrite or some other excuse when it is simply the raw exercise of using personal information to destroy someone they don’t like. They also will maintain that it is never OK if a straight person outs a gay irrespective of the circumstance which is just self serving crap. Second, Greenwald is someone who has his own problem with leaking information. His alliance with Edward Snowden will produce its own share of collateral damage. I am sure he is just trying to make it sound like he has some standards on the issue when of course he has none. I am surprised he would write on this topic, but then again, not really.
Dalrock, we are in a cycle. Other prosperous societies have gone through this cycle before but their responses differed due to economy, technology, culture, etc. Earlier decadent cultures facing a surplus of men responded with slavery, eunuchs, military conscription, raids on others, Colosseums, circuses, execution for low severity crimes and banishment for others and polygamy. Here we find ourselves, more humane, but facing the same constraints and bottlenecks as earlier wealthy people.
The sine wave will reverse, it always does, but what it means is that those who choose monogamy must be fewer and more personally committed to the institution, women and men alike.
This woman wasn’t cut out, or groomed, or supported, for monogamy. View this like private equity. The publicly traded institution is bloated, under performing, out of step with its core mission, floundering, unprofitable in most sectors but possessing vital assets which, if honed, trimmed and retrenched under sound leadership with all the excess set free…those assets will still perform. You can’t save the public institution, let alone the whole market, you are only human man, to aim so high is hubris. There is no point bringing back shaming for the masses, the masses have already left you. It’s time to cut loses and take the institution private.
jbro1922,
Thank you for the compliment. I am constantly amazed at the number of otherwise intelligent people who seem to think that leaving things to chance is the only way to find a spouse. Part of it is the idea of “The One” that Dalrock mentioned some time ago, wherein each person has a single perfect soulmate who will fall from the sky when God or the Universe deems the time to be right. Such romanticism causes many people – especially women – to pass up excellent matches for the sake of a “promise” that nobody made: the appearance of “The One.”
In truth, I was very fortunate, and I say that not out of pride (it was was pride I would say that I deserved something great). But my choice of wife and the reality of our marriage was certainly made more likely by the fact that I wasn’t stupid about women, and I was prudent in my search for a wife.
But although my wife and I have a “soulmate” kind of marriage (we’ve been married since 1987 and have literally never raised our voices to each other in anger), I don’t doubt that I could have “made a go” of it with another woman, probably even at least two of the women that I dated. Would those marriages have been as good? No. I don’t know any couple that can honestly say that they have never raised their voices. Could we have been “my one and only” to each other? Yes.
In every other area of our lives people seem to have an adult understanding that long-term goals require long-term strategies, but that somehow a perfect match will “just happen.” History, experience, and observation are unkind to that view, yet hope seems to spring eternal.
@Heather G
“As for me, yes, I’ve opted out now. “
Was that your decision or God’s? Because it seems that you think you know what God has in store for your life. Or don’t you want Him to spoil your plans?
“because while I am into the idea of submitting to a husband”,
Well are you sure you understand the concept of submission? Because being into an idea and executing the idea are two different things. If you think questioning your husband means you are not submitting then you are wrong. Submission means doing what he has decided [ as he has the last say] and supporting him all the way in it.
“I don’t believe in some Saudi Arabia “you must never question the man” type of crap.”
Have you ever been to Saudi Arabia?
“But I once did…so this is not why I’m not married.”
As I wrote above – I think your thoughts have been infected by feminist views of submission and what it Biblically means to submit.
We can ask God all the questions we want however we are always required to follow the instructions given even when it hard and we do not understand why.
HeatherG, I understand you probably won’t respond, b/c you already said you were going to stop commenting twice. But chances are you are still reading this string, so thought I’d encourage you to follow the adsgamer’s advice with respect to reading Dalrocks posts. I don’t know anything about his other suggestions so I can’t recommend or disapprove.
If you really do want to find a husband before it’s too late, there is some good advice above. Like: “she can . . . be married within 18 months if she wants to be, BUT she needs to get very “red-pill-real” about what she’s bringing to the table herself so she can be honest with herself about what she can get now. And . . . be content with the older middle-management guys with thinning hair that are now her peers in the marriage market.”
And, “I did a guest article on another blog that’s related to this topic.
https://unmaskingfeminism.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/guest-post-potential-wife-value-and-the-good-man-store-by-lyn87/
These women could spend the next six months on a crash-course of self-improvement. At the end of that they could tell all their friends to tell all of their friends to all spread the word around their churches that they will accept at least one date with any Christian man looking for marriage… then follow through on it. If she hasn’t found anyone she’s crazy about within six months, she at least knows where she stands in the marriage market. At that point she either 1) picks the best one to date and proposes to him (then goes ALL IN like I wrote earlier) or 2) recognizes that she’s chosen to remain single… and comes to peace with her choice.”
There are probably more good husband-finding posts to read. This is all I had time to find: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/02/23/what-a-setup-looks-like/ If anybody else thinks of one, add it to the string for her. She’s probably lurking. Go ahead and lead the horse to water. Maybe she’ll take a drink.
@ feeriker,
I know.. I know… what was I thinking? My excuse will be that it’s past my bedtime here in Asia and my tired brain is addled from being awake too long. At least tomorrow is a day off from work (and a lifting day at the gym!). Goodnight, all.
“But although my wife and I have a “soulmate” kind of marriage (we’ve been married since 1987 and have literally never raised our voices to each other in anger),”
Interesting you mention this. My boyfriend now thinks it’s odd we’ve been dating for 7 months and never had a fight. There is a part of him that wonders if it’s too soon to be talking about marriage. He was raised by a single mother who has been divorced 3 times so I can see where the hesitation comes from.
I am incredibly grateful that I met him. I’m 32 and he is 33 so being realistic is very humbling and has its rewards.
@Linda
Dalrock did a post on advice to a woman in her 30s looking to marry.
@ Dave
“Ugly people don’t attract.”
You mean a “kind, gentle spirit” doesn’t make an ugly person sizzling hot? Who’dda thunk?
theasdgamer says:
August 28, 2015 at 12:31 pm
I understand how using the word “protect” can be misconstrued because of how feminists (left and right) misuse the term. That being said, I don’t believe there was any “blue pill” thinking in what I wrote. Being corralled by men is how women were / are protected. There are other ways that men protect women as well. All of which are lost when a woman is rebellious or even autonomous IMO. Other than that minor tweak I completely agree with what you wrote.
@ JDG
“Protect” necessarily implies pedestalization. Protection from da evil menz. Blue pill thinking. Subtle connotations matter. “Corral” implies control.
@ Lyn87
But although my wife and I have a “soulmate” kind of marriage (we’ve been married since 1987 and have literally never raised our voices to each other in anger),
Mrs. Gamer and I have a SoS type of marriage–lots of passion: anger, jealousy (on her part), love, desire, and tenderness. Oh, lots of sex, too–we keep track on the calendar and it was 23 times in July; Mrs. Gamer sometimes wakes me up for it.
I can’t imagine being married to anyone else. But I do maintain options, just like in SoS.
Sometimes the most well-meaning advice can have the very opposite effect to that which was intended. Surely for example every time an ex-smoker sees an advert – say even picturing a scrunched up cigarette – all that does is remind him that he would like a smoke. Is not the same likely to happen with the football team in Venice? Here however is my tip on how they can improve one of the avowed aims of the pep-talks – gender equality. No, not a linguistic discussion as to the correct use of masculine, feminine and neuter but by inviting girls to join the football team. Purely on merit of course and then the boys will learn just how equality of all the ‘genders’ including the neutered one (i.e. trans people) works in practice (yes invite some ladyboys along too).
I note by the way that despite the lurid accusations against the team the police took no further action [translation into normal English: false allegations]. For a Moral Philosopher Snr Perez is a great football coach (but needs to acquire some moral cojones).
“Protect” necessarily implies pedestalization …
Again I have to disagree. I protect my son without putting him on a pedestal all the time. The word has been misused. That is all.
Haha, Anon Reader. Time for a refresher on our Alpha archetypes.
–F*ckbuddy Rockbanddrummer: My personal favorite. The dude in a shitty garage band. Has some talent, but will never get beyond local celebrityhood. Plays all the dive bars and local festivals with his band. Can’t hold a job to save his life; lives off his meager music earnings, the odd job here and there, and mooching off his friends and family. Swims in poon.
–Alpha McGorgeous: The smooth player. Experienced with women. Earns a steady paycheck; could be anything from a government employee to a multi millionaire businessman. Has regular GFs, flings, ONSs, and STRs. Confirmed bachelor and lives the life to prove it. The original Roissy cultivated this persona.
–Harley McBadboy (also known as Biker McTattoohead): The brooding, angry, dangerously taciturn outlaw. Hangs out with his “friends” at local bars. Usually does, but does not always, ride a motorcycle. Would shiv you with a switchblade as soon as look at you. Usually has a criminal record of varying severities; at the very least has been arrested. Probably has warrants out for his arrest in a state or two and might have an illegitimate child or three out there. Makes clear he is willing to threaten, or do, serious violence to achieve his purposes. Examples: Sam Elliott often portrays these characters. James Dean’s “rebel” persona.
–Frank Fratboy: The Big Man on Campus, fraternity member. Boozes it up on weekends, ‘hail fellow well met’ type. Is everyone’s friend. Will do anything for you as long as you introduce him to your female friends. Also smooth with the ladies (or rough, or in between – whatever he has to be to get laid). Usually a good looking guy. Might also be an NCAA intercollegiate athlete. Despite his middling talents, lack of ambition and occasional irresponsibility, he’s a smashing success at his every endeavor. The older versions of such men usually become corporate senior management, law firm senior partners, politicians, political operatives, and cronies.
I think this site is hell to the feminized brain.
“I think this site is hell to the feminized brain.”
Not with advice like “a kind, gentle spirit will get an unfortunately ugly woman a husband”. Females eat that up, then vomit it out once they reach puberty and discover its not true.
Re Heather G and Kate Hurley (authoress of the other blog post linked to above):
I don’t believe for one minute that you have been waiting years on years with absolutely NO interest from men AT ALL.
Any woman who’s out there looking for a man WILL find one.
You either:
1. Didn’t look AT ALL;
2. Deliberately made yourselves unavailable and unapproachable; or,
most likely 3. Rejected many, many interested men left and right, all over the place, for one reason or another.
Sorry to go OT for a bit, but Sam Bushman was talking about Fireproof and Courageous and I replied with your reviews
http://www.libertyroundtable.com/contact/
(Note: he is a happily married Mormon with a big, happy, family)
He said (in an email) he would be willing to have you on his broadcast to discuss – he disagrees but he likes discussion. If he contacts you or you can contact him, I think an on-air discussion of these “Christian” movies, at least the problem if “women can do no wrong”, and “It’s always the Man’s fault” would be useful to everyone.
On this topic, I can only remember the disabled man whose parents took care of him, and he ended up in a hospital in his final days, and a nurse arranged for a prostitute (without the parent’s knowledge). The nurse wasn’t taking responsibility, hadn’t done everything from the time his diapers needed changing, yet thought “oh, he wants to lose his virginity, I’ll do the right thing”. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/595894/posts – He wants to defraud or disown his parents – that is what is not what is noted in the choice. He prefers sin to those who did everything and sacrificed for him. He doesn’t want to be perceived as a Judas.
Another parallel – and possible (monstrous) solution to this unrepentant woman caught in adultery – would be to parallel Terri Schiavo and her “moved on” husband that was shacking up and had two kids by another woman and arranged to have her starved to death.
Anybody:
What is the URL to Heather G’s blog. When I click on her pic there is no blog address. I’d like to read her stuff……….
I don’t believe for one minute that you have been waiting years on years with absolutely NO interest from men AT ALL.
MGTOW is real these days, thedeti.
A woman in her late 20’s was lamenting how she was unable to find a husband. “I have smiled more, flirted with the men, but nothing happened”.
3. Rejected many, many interested men left and right, all over the place, for one reason or another. .
The objective answer is 3. But in her mind’s eye the answer is 1. due to Apex Fallacy.
Dave, MGTOW is real but we haven’t yet crossed the threshold where even a decently attractive women cannot find ANY interested men in her league. Those days may be fast approaching though.
We’ll know when we reach that threshold because the whining will become unbearable.
You believe that da wimmenz need to be protected from da menz. That is your White Knight position. Correct? If so, JDG, then you are therefore a tradcon who pedestalizes wimmenz. (If this isn’t your position, then please state your position clearly.)
By contrast, Red Pill says that women need to be corralled so that their Hypergamy is controlled. Very different ideas and ways of looking at things. The problem is the women’s Hypergamy–in Red Pill parlance.
Heather likely rejected many suitable (based on her SMV) men off-hand. Perhaps they weren’t visible to her. Not saying that they approached and she rejected. She likely didn’t even signal them with any interest.
Not with advice like “a kind, gentle spirit will get an unfortunately ugly woman a husband”
I know a woman who is a 3 tops. She doesn’t even have a kind gentle spirit, yet she managed to land a guy way above her SMV and MMV (probably a 7 but at least a 5 – you’d have to ask a girl). I’ve never met a woman (no matter how ugly) under 40 who couldn’t land a guy if she wanted one. In my own experiences it ALWAYS comes down to the women not wanting the guys available (I concede that sometimes the reasons are valid).
You believe that da wimmenz need to be protected from da menz. That is your White Knight position. Correct?
No, that is you putting trying to put words in my mouth. If you want to keep giving the enemy control of the narrative (the meanings of words), that’s your problem. I refuse to allow feminists to control the meanings of words. Protect means what it means, not what you think it implies. Your attempts at shaming are futile and useless.
Very different ideas and ways of looking at things.
No it is not. The two ideas are virtually indistinguishable when using the proper meaning of the terms in the context of Patriarchal authority.
Hilarious to see the kook Mickey Singh still commenting here.
So, not more than three hours ago, I met (in passing) someone who fits this description. Wendy is not hideous, but otherwise she was nothing to look at. A nurse, she was on her way home in her “scrubs” work uniform. She’s a mixed-race chick originally from the carribean. She has a very well-behaved son and has been married for a long-ass time (probably since her teenage years). She’s about ten pounds overweight and in her mid thirties, I’d guess.
All that aside, her soft spoken manner and the way she emanates chastity and feminine modesty was enough to get me rock hard and ready for action in less than a minute of dealing with her. This is not an intellectual thing, nor is it something I can explain with psychology. It’s just the way we (men) work. The dick knows when a good woman is around, and it never lies. If she was available, I’d have taken a shot at it right then, and so would any other normal man, despite her age and her physical flaws.
Girls, listen up. When feminists (like Mickey Singh) tell you that it’s “sexy” to be brash and loud and aggressive, they are giving you horrible advice. I believe that most of them are consciously lying. (Feminists want all women to be as miserable as they themselves are — it’s the only thing that explains their shit).
The opposite is true, in fact. The way to attract a man and keep him on the hook is to be soft spoken, to be quiet, to avoid eye contact, to smile, feign a sort of bashfulness, and be exactly the opposite of a loud, pushy feminist. If you can handle this, you’ll have any man you want, and you’ll be able to get him to do whatever you want him to do. He’ll move mountains for you, thinking it was his idea from the beginning.
Best,
Boxer
Protection always involves protecting something of yours from a threat. Corralling involves asserting authority and rulership over something of yours so that you keep your stuff under your control and in your domain.
We agree. The two ideas are virtually indistinguishable when 7 goes into 9 and 8 goes into 11 evenly. And when the sun rises in the west and water isn’t wet.
Don’t be a douche who tries to rewrite the dictionary to suit his own agenda.
And you still haven’t said what is being protected and what is the threat. I’m still waiting.
Don’t be a douche who tries to rewrite the dictionary to suit his own agenda.
You are the douche who interjected your revision of the meaning of the term protection as prescribed by YOUR twist on things (here’s a clue: no where does the definition of “protection” imply that women are on a pedestal when being protected by men):
pro·tec·tion
prəˈtekSH(ə)n/
noun
the action of protecting someone or something, or the state of being protected.
“the B vitamins give protection against infection”
synonyms: defense, security, shielding, preservation, conservation, safekeeping, safeguarding, safety, sanctuary, shelter, refuge, lee, immunity, insurance, indemnity More
a person or thing that prevents someone or something from suffering harm or injury.
“the castle was built as protection against the Saxons”
synonyms: barrier, buffer, shield, screen, hedge, cushion, preventative, armor, refuge, bulwark
“good protection against noise”
a legal or other formal measure intended to preserve civil liberties and rights.
plural noun: protections
And you still haven’t said what is being protected and what is the threat. I’m still waiting.
I’m under no obligation to provide you with anything. That you read into my comment anything pertaining to “women on a pedestal” also is not my problem. Sometimes you sound like a 6th grader trying to get his buddies to make fun of some kid that he doesn’t like. “Hey guys, he said “protect”, he must be a white knight.” Pathetic.
You’re a rogue who violates normal social conventions, JDG.
And I don’t see “corral” as a synonym here.
And your refusal to clarify is more evidence that you are a rogue. You don’t want to be pinned down or exposed as a pedestalizing White Knight.
You don’t want to be pinned down or exposed as a pedestalizing White Knight.
LOL
What ever makes you happy.
Deti, you missed a classification.
“The Natural”: Someone who gets attention from women as a matter of course. Not as smooth as a Pickup Artist who has studied Game, but has some social skills and shows innate confidence with women, and is able to generate tingles and comfort as needed.
Hey everybody! theasdgamer has exposed me as a white knight. Oh noes!!! What ever will I do? Could someone post the definition of “White Knight” as understood in “the sphere” so I can make sure I live up to the standards? As long as they are biblical I’ll do my best to comply.
Biblical, according to the Bible of Feminist White Knights. You’re 5h1t is biblical, all right, lol.
theasdgamer says:
August 28, 2015 at 6:45 pm
Yawn!
A white knight is one of those faggy types who is always ‘rescuing’ some dame who has made bad choices. He thinks that by shielding her from the natural consequences of her actions, the ho’ will reward him with sex. In reality, he is just demonstrating his low worth and thus turning all women off who see him. Most white knights get used and tossed aside, and some get killed by other men for their meddling and desperate attention seeking.
I don’t think JDG is a white knight, but I’m sure there are some in the audience. Most were raised by single moms and have boundary issues. Don’t be a white knight. It never pays off.
More evidence for theasdgamer to use in exposing me as a white knight:
The cycle of the sammich:
men need sammiches
sammiches need women
women need kitchens
kitchens need houses
houses need men
A white knight is one of those faggy types who is always ‘rescuing’ some dame who has made bad choices. He thinks that by shielding her from the natural consequences of her actions, the ho’ will reward him with sex.
Well am I disappointed. I guess that rules me out. I’m not faggy. I am a strong advocate in my church and my community for holding women accountable for their actions. What’s worse, is that I couldn’t accept rewards for sex from any women I rescue without sinning (except from my wife I suppose if I allowed the sex for reward dynamic in our marriage, but I don’t).
By the by, thank you Boxer for your input and vote of confidence.
“The cycle of the sammich:
men need sammiches
sammiches need women
women need kitchens
kitchens need houses
houses need men”
Jeez JDG, I lost my wine all over the keyboard!
Thanks for the laugh.
Oh Wow! This is perfect! (H/T – Knuckledraggin)
http://knuckledraggin.com/2015/08/heh-47/
The way to attract a man and keep him on the hook is to be soft spoken, to be quiet, to avoid eye contact, to smile, feign a sort of bashfulness, and be exactly the opposite of a loud, pushy feminist. If you can handle this, you’ll have any man you want, and you’ll be able to get him to do whatever you want him to do. He’ll move mountains for you, thinking it was his idea from the beginning.
“If you can handle this” being the operative words. Apparently most women in the English-speaking world today can’t. HeatherG upthread appears to equate being demure and feminine with being a concubine of some extremist Wahhabi or Shi’ite Jihadi who treats women as chattel animals to be abused and disposed of – and she’s one of the less extreme adherents of this fear. Women seldom ever openly admit to this, but most make their position clear with their hostile, pseudo-masculine attitudes.
TL;DR version: men who want women to act like women are misogynist brutes (but apparently women who fear and loathe them still want them. Go figure. Cue TFH and the obsolete brain-‘gina interface theory here.)
As if you can be saved by your own power, eh? You may have heard somewhere that the Church established by Christ is a hospital for sinners and that Christ came to save sinners.
EXPOSE : feminists training school witness :
http://i0.wp.com/knuckledraggin.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/80.gif?zoom=1.5&resize=350%2C144
@DeNihilist , good find, got a few good gifs, as above. I’m sure HeatherG would have left this one for us if she could.
….still post….without her self defined ban.
There were only 12,000 women using Ashley Madison. The rest of the profiles were fake and designed to scam men. 31 million male users.
http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944
Micha Elyi says:
August 28, 2015 at 8:04 pm
You’re being obtuse. When we become Christians we become new creatures. We are to give up the old, sinful ways. These women are willfully engage in ongoing fornication. HeatherG is the one who admitted that her friends are having sex outside of marriage with their unsaved boyfriends on an ongoing basis. Such conduct merits a call for repentance, and excommunication if no repentance is forthcoming – not sympathy followed by blaming Christian men for not wifing them up so they doesn’t turn into sluts in their search for “love.” When Jesus refused to cast the first stone at the adulteress, he didn’t do it because the punishment would have been unjust (God never changes and He is the one who set that as the penalty). He did it because the accusers were deliberately trying to lay a trap for him in order to make an accusation (John 8:6). We don’t know the context or the nature of the accusation they hoped to make because the text doesn’t tell us, but Jesus handled it masterfully as always. In any case, note that the final recorded words Jesus said to her were, “Go and sin no more.”
A woman who claims to be a Christian who is currently banging her boyfriend has no cause to complain that no rich, tall, handsome Christian men are lining up to marry her (if they didn’t demand men who are out of their leagues they would already be married). Yet that was the essence of Heather’s complaint – that these good, Christian women got so fed up with waiting for God to drop a Christian romance novel hero into their laps that they spread their legs for random guys. Simply put, these women could easily be married already to good Christian men, but they only want certain examples of those men, and since they can’t get the ones they want, they choose to fornicate with unsaved men until God “delivers.” They are not suitable for Christian matrimony any more, and may never become so. Do you really not understand that?
If you can’t, then imagine if the sexes were reversed. There are plenty of good Christian guys in churches who play by the rules, yet are romantically rejected by the young Christian women in those churches. If a bunch of them started openly going to prostitutes, would you be so cavalier about the fact that they’re sinning… and then go a step further of laying the blame on God and/or the attractive women in the church for not marrying them, and thus “driving” them to the prostitutes? Of course not… but that is exactly what churchians like you and Heather do when you attempt to whitewash the sexual sins of women.
“The way to attract a man and keep him on the hook is to be soft spoken, to be quiet, to avoid eye contact, to smile, feign a sort of bashfulness, and be exactly the opposite of a loud, pushy feminist. If you can handle this, you’ll have any man you want, and you’ll be able to get him to do whatever you want him to do. ”
A good looking woman who acts like this will get at least one man but not necessarily the man or men she wants. Definitely not “any man you want’.
OK god its you, that explains it.
“Not with advice like “a kind, gentle spirit will get an unfortunately ugly woman a husband”. Females eat that up, then vomit it out once they reach puberty and discover its not true.”
“So, not more than three hours ago, I met (in passing) someone who fits this description. Wendy is not hideous…”
Yeah well we were talking about hideous people “unfortanately ugly” was the terminology the original poster used.
“Girls, listen up. When feminists (like Mickey Singh) tell you that it’s “sexy” to be brash and loud and aggressive…”
I told someone that? Quote me.
Read closely next time. It will save you from writing overly verbose off topic posts.
@JDG:
This thread doesn’t have enough Sandwiches in it. And, ASDgamer, you’re being obtuse about this.
@Lyn87:
We do pretty well know what the Stoning Squad was up to in with the adulteress. Israel was under Roman rule, so they couldn’t go about executing people without permission. There is a reason they had to take Jesus to Pilot, as they didn’t have the authority to execute him. To stone the Woman would be to violate Roman law. They were trying to play Jesus against either the Romans or the Jews. (Classic false dichotomy, which is why the response is so perfectly Godly in its wisdom)
@ LG,
I’d forgotten about that. That makes sense. Thanks
I really like Deti’s four Alpha archetypes – the memorable names only nail the type so firmly in the mind. I am not sure if they are original to Deti or not, but if so I was wondering whether he could do likewise for the women who fall for these men. To my mind there are at a minimum two types: firstly the girl who sleeps with the alpha and is thus convinced that having pumped her that marriage is a forgone conclusion, only to be disabused on hearing that she is just one of the many yet still she pointlessly pursues him; secondly the woman who post-coitus decides that she needs born again virgin status and thus has been rapety-raped. I need names for these two types of victim.
Like Boxer, I do not identify as Christian and thus I am most amused (on my limited understanding of the Gospels) when I hear women such as Heather G. attempting to rewrite the scriptures to suit her modern have-it-all lifestyle. Her descriptions of her female friends and their desirable qualities puts me very much in mind of the descriptions that my local dating agency – since gone out of business – were using for their middle-aged female customers. Incidentally I was pleased to read Lyn87’s description of ‘Marital Rape’ as an Oxymoron: I concur.
My observation is that most Americans who claim to be Christians are not Christians at all. In fact, most do not even begin to understand what it means to be a Christian.
When you listen closely to many American Christians as they write about themselves or life experiences, they never mention the time they became Christians. To them, they were born and raised Christians, and they believe they were Christians. Truth is, nothing could be further from the truth. No one has ever been nor will ever be born Christian.
A Christian is someone who has had a personal, life-changing experience with Christ. It is more than being born into a religious home, or attending church and Sunday school or VBS or even a bible school. Many pastors in America, I’m afraid, are not Christians, just like many church members. To be a Christian is to be “born again” in the biblical sense.
A Christian has adopted the Bible as his/her rule book for life. The Bible is his/her final authority and such a person strives to live in conformity to the Word at all times. To the Christian, people’s opinions don’t count, no matter how well respected such people or their opinions might be. The Word of God is the first and last to him/her.
Christianity is not a religion per se in the same sense that Islam is a religion. Christians have a living and thriving relationship with God.
Women have always been this way. Once a man’s usefulness (or resources) expire then he is no longer needed. Women jump from branch to branch when it comes to a provider. Sure, they’ll fuck a bad boy in between to get their tingles but when it comes to comfort and security they use up one man and then swing to another man. The tragic (and sweet) mistake is when they try to lock up that bad boy as relationship material….and then get the message that she was only a pump and dump for the bad boy.
It’s sad and tragic because many lives and families have been destroyed by many of these women. You’ll never hear it through the media, though, because they pander too much to women (for the dollars). It’s always the man who is at fault (hence the reason why there is no true equality…never will be, either).
For those who still doubt the reality of MGTOW, please read this
Of course, as usual feminized thinking will overlook the obvious.
…Halberstam knew all this because her own son was going through the matchmaking process: “I feel a little sad each time the fax machine cranks out yet another résumé for my son. I know full well that there are fantastic girls out there who are his equals—perhaps even his superiors—who are NOT receiving comparable treatment… I ache for their mothers, who repeatedly call the shadchanim [matchmakers] who never call back, but are visibly more responsive if you are the mother of a boy. Inwardly, I rail against the unfairness of it all.”
Unfairness? Was feminism not primarily Jewish women’s brainchild?
This woman should wait to see the devastation of feminism on women and society in the next 20-30 years. It will be heart-rending.
@Dave:
The LDS is collapsing if they’re to a 40:60 Male:Female ratio. Actual Churches are in crisis when it gets to 45:55, and that’s long been understood.
I have to love this passage, though:
” Weissman places much of the blame for the Shidduch Crisis on the women themselves. As he wrote on TheYeshivaWorld.com website, women are too focused on “non-Halachic externalities” (i.e., attributes not valued by Jewish law or tradition) when evaluating prospective husbands: “I would posit that feminism and un-Jewish values have had a devastating effect on the shidduch world… The same women who are supposedly just desperate to get married, who want nothing more than to meet a nice guy who doesn’t drool all over himself, categorically reject the vast majority of men they come across without batting an eyelash—and then say the problem is there aren’t any good guys.” ”
It should be hilariously noted this entire story only exists because some Women, somewhere, might have a harder time finding a Husband. It might take… WORK! What did Dalrock call it, “strip mining” the dating pool?
(I’m going down the article, and it’s fantastic. In the “we know this but you can’t put 2 & 2 together properly” way.)
I find it funny how there is such an amazing amount of good information on functional diets to keep weight down, yet Women view starving themselves as the fastest/best way possible. It’s almost like they relish the victimhood of it. Before it causes a ton of problems.
Oh, and anorexia starts earlier. Something like 80-85% of anorexia patients have preexisting throat, stomach or GI tract issues of significant nature. What’s actually happened is they are malnourished when they hit puberty, in most cases, and the mind becomes unhinged in certain areas because the body is broken.
Dowries exist when Men are in shorter supply. (Bride Price when Women are in shorter supply) Though they normally happen after large wars, when 15-20% of the young Men are now buried and dead.
No, most Jewish communities DO marry for money. That isn’t a stereotype. Unless my several Jewish friends were lying constantly when complaining about how greedy Jewish Women acted. It’s only a problem when it’s the Woman’s side of things that needs to bring the money. Heaven forefend is the Man doesn’t have a lot of money.
Dave,
That article was amazing. At some point there ought to be a mass awakening where society stands up and says to feminists, “WE GAVE YOU ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING YOU ASKED FOR… WHY ARE YOU STILL NOT HAPPY?” They wanted female-centric primary and secondary education, so we revamped our entire educational system to cater to girls at the explicit expense of boys. Then we stacked the deck for them to get into college, to the point that they got “empowered” all the way to a 3-to-2 numerical advantage, whereas in a merit-based system they would not even approach parity. Then after getting all that handed to them for the asking, they are now whining that there aren’t enough college-educated men for the college-educated women to pair off with. Well of course there aren’t… they were removed to make room for the girls! What did they think was going to happen? Where did they think the men were going to come from after their numbers were deliberately reduced?
The kicker is something that red-pill know intrinsically, you can’t make women happy by giving them what they say they want. Our society is like some huge beta-orbiter that gives women every little thing in a quest to make then happy, only to met with complaints that 1) it isn’t enough, 2) the consequences are unpleasant, and 3) they are less happy than they were before. This article about that study is less scholarly but more to the point in a way that red-pill men will find brimming with schadenfreude.
So many things in that article jumped out that it’s difficult to know where to start. This is one of those things that’s going to take multiple readings to digest. One of the obvious ones was where the matchmaker was complaining that, “My own sister is thirty-seven, educated, accomplished, attractive, and single. I told her to freeze her eggs.” The fact that she’s 37 means that she’s not nearly as attractive as a candidate for first marriage as her competitors, who are a dozen years her junior. As for educated and accomplished, I’ll take “Things men don’t care about for $1000, Alex.” You would think that a professional matchmaker – of all people – would have some clue that the things that attract women (like education and accomplishment) are very different than the things that attract men (like not being 37).
Heather G
I can’t decide whether these comments are horrific or hilarious. You are so willing to make assumptions and judgments about girls you never met – ladies who spent their entire lives following conservative Christian ideals about marriage, and yes, about sex – following a book like “I kissed dating goodbye” was definitely not something that feminists are into…At any rate, I’m not going to keep commenting here because this comment stream is particularly ugly and nasty and I just don’t want to be part of it. So – have fun skewering me behind my back some more. But you guys aren’t representing Christ at all by deciding to condemn women you haven’t even met for crimes you think that they must somehow be committing that you have no evidence for, simply because they aren’t married…
I’m in your same demographic. I’m also a mid-30s, virgin Christian, who read IKDG and had it and ideas like it pushed on my peers and me in church, particularly in our youth groups. I also heard the same inane statements you did like the old platitude, “You’ll find someone when you stop looking.” How well has that one worked out for us, yeah?
However, none of that matters now. At this point in our lives, now is not the time to be sensitive nor dismissive of others’ instruction, no matter how much that instruction might sting. Now is the time to find solutions, because the hurt of loneliness is much more severe than the slight hurt we might get from some constructive criticism, and if we feel that criticism is unwarranted like you seem to think in regards to yourself and the ladies you mention, then there’s nothing to get hurt or horrified about, anyway. In such a case as that, it would just be a simple matter of checking “N/A” and then discussing other possibilities. These men are simply advising you on likelihoods from what they’ve observed themselves, but I imagine they would be willing to entertain other possibilities if you were to be more specific.
I’ve been reading here for about a year or so, and while I’ve certainly seen comments I find uncalled for, I also know that a lot of what’s said is aimed at getting to the truth (hence, “the Red Pill”) and not skewering or condeming any one particular person. Ideas certainly get skewered, but that’s because these bloggers and commenters feel those ideas are untrue. Likewise, actions and behaviors get condemned, but that’s far-removed from condemning an individual and saying that person is beyond redemption in Christ.
The link about the article didn’t post. I assume operator error on my part. The link is here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1190675/Youve-got-want-girls-Stop-whining-Has-feminism-women-unhappy-THIS-certainly-will.html
Yeah, JDG isn’t a white knight, cuz he says that women need protecting when they don’t need it. So not a white knight. [/sarcasm]
People in prison are corralled. People in prison must be there because prisoners need to be protected. Heh
Too many wankers letting their biases affect their judgment and miss exposing Blue Pill thinking.
Truth is so dependent on voting. [/sarcasm]
Oops about my last handle. Please edit the aka part out.
Let’s examine whether “corral” can mean “protect”, like JDG asserts. People in prison are corralled. People in prison are there in order to protect the prisoners. Does this sound reasonable or absurd?
Truth is dependent on votes. Does this sound reasonable or absurd? JDG thinks that voting matters when it comes to truth. Otherwise, why does Boxer’s agreement matter to JDG?
Don’t let your bias (like or dislike of someone) affect your judgment. You may not like me, but don’t let that affect your judgment of what I say.
Let’s try this: “Women need to be corralled to protect them from themselves.”
Ancient wisdom. Can we drop this now?
Lyn87
As for educated and accomplished, I’ll take “Things men don’t care about for $1000, Alex.” You would think that a professional matchmaker – of all people – would have some clue that the things that attract women…
Haha, indeed. Instead of saying, “My own sister is thirty-seven, educated, accomplished, attractive, and single,” the matchmaker should be able to honestly say, “My sister is sweet, caring, submissive, attractive, moral, and single” and leave the irrelevant qualifications off the dating resume.
@Lyn87:
I believe the numbers bear out that the percentage of high-school graduate Men going to college has been roughly stable since the 90s. The “equality” aspect was dumbing down schools, rapidly expanding capacity and loan-based financing. It’s a classic case of a Debt-fueled Asset Bubble via exchange rate manipulation. In this case, the “exchange rate” was the entrance requirements to college.
Granted, there is a very legitimate reasons that families responded to sending more girls to college. Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971). This case (and its add-ons) threw such a monkey wrench in Employer liability that college degrees rapidly became the defacto “standard” to show competence. If you want any of the “better” jobs, even teaching, you had to play the College Game.
Doesn’t mean it was a good idea, but the Supreme Court has a tendency to screw up most things.
“That article was amazing. At some point there ought to be a mass awakening where society stands up and says to feminists, “WE GAVE YOU ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING YOU ASKED FOR… WHY ARE YOU STILL NOT HAPPY?” They wanted female-centric primary and secondary education, so we revamped our entire educational system to cater to girls at the explicit expense of boys. Then we stacked the deck for them to get into college, to the point that they got “empowered” all the way to a 3-to-2 numerical advantage, whereas in a merit-based system they would not even approach parity. Then after getting all that handed to them for the asking, they are now whining that there aren’t enough college-educated men for the college-educated women to pair off with. Well of course there aren’t… they were removed to make room for the girls! What did they think was going to happen? Where did they think the men were going to come from after their numbers were deliberately reduced?”
Yes Lyn87! I saw a YouTube video about this new trend, I guess, for wen to “change what they want in a man” as a result of these policies. Now satin advice asks women to consider blue collar men. After all, the CEO of Xerox is a woman married to a much older man. This is seen as a good arrangement. Woman can still work all amount of ungodly hours while house husband stays home with the kids as a retiree and does the housework. Of course the big problem with that, the blind spot they refuse to see, is that that arrangement is not “equal” as they define it themselves. The other problem with that arrangement is that they will not be attracted to a man who is a house husband. Whatever will they do?
Don’t let your bias (like or dislike of someone) affect your judgment. You may not like me, but don’t let that affect your judgment of what I say.
The problem is that when what you say is incorrect, you won’t acknowledge it. If somebody doesn’t agree with your slant then according to you they must be “blue pill” or white knights. Pretty soon you’ll have your own “red pill” version of PC speech for everyone to follow. Anyone who doesn’t pass theasdgamer’s test for speech / think will be labeled a heretic. Well lets just save time and call me a heretic already.
Pingback: Hurting women | Dalrock
“Let’s examine whether “corral” can mean “protect”, like JDG asserts. People in prison are there in order to protect the prisoners. Does this sound reasonable or absurd?”
This is a False Analogy logical fallacy – The fallacy of incorrectly comparing one thing to another in order to draw a false conclusion.
-Words are to be interpreted according to subject matter.
Good segue, LG. That case set the stage for today’s crendentialism… where employers cannot just test applicants to see how well they do (for those who don’t know – that’s because some racial groups perform better on average than others, so testing leads to “disparate impact,” which is easy to allege, and difficult and expensive to disprove). Consequently, college degrees became a proxy for “capable.” My wife is doing a job that could be done by a HS graduate, but the company will not even consider an applicant who lacks a four-year degree (they even fired the people who had been doing the job for years who came to the company before they had that requirement – how freaking stupid is that?). She’s a very clever girl, but her MA (in a completely unrelated field) was instrumental in her getting the job.
But that system is in place because the USSC made the call (although Duke Power really did so some things wrong). And everything you wrote about the debt-fueled education bubble is true. But feminists still get to lie in a bed of their own making. They pushed college for girls who should spend their 20’s pair-bonding with their husbands and taking care of their children rather than studying Intersectional Feminist Theory in Pre-Revolutionary France and pulling trains in Cabo on Spring Break.
But if we look at the crisis in education, it started when people noticed that boys do a lot better than girls at… well… pretty much everything. However, like the plaintiff in Griggs v Duke Power, unequal outcomes MUST prove unfair advantage, and today’s result is an education system that is dominated by women and reflects girl’s ways of learning, while actively suppressing boys. Feminists can blame themselves that college girls (I can’t really call most of them women), cannot all pair off with an Alpha male with a college education, when they demanded (and got) 60% of the available college slots. You would think a group of people with that many degrees would understand that you can’t have one man for every girl if you arrange things so that there are 60% girls. And since they’re a bunch of Marxists they don’t have any idea how supply-and-demand works. Consequently they are mystified that the few remaining men (the scarce resource on the supply side) have raised the price for commitment when the girls have already internalized feminist sluttery while retaining their hypergamy. The price of vaj has fallen through the floor, and since each girl only gets one to bargain with, they’re throwing it around like candy at a parade (but STILL only to the top guys).
And yet feminists want to: 1) get more girls into male-dominated majors without getting more men into female-dominated ones, and 2) allow any girl to have any man expelled based on nothing more than hurt feelings. That shows what most of us already know: feminism is all about extending the already-significant privileges and advantages enjoyed by UMC white women. As someone wrote recently, “Oppressed people don’t go to grad school.”
@ no9
What you say might be correct, but it also might not. We have no basis to know SINCE YOU NEVER FAKKING OFFERED ANY SUPPORT FOR YOUR CONCLUSION. Wanker.
Well lets just save time and call me a heretic already.
Nailed it. You’re a Blue Pill churchian.
regarding the math problem of too many single women, it appears that old Joe Smith had it right, multiple wives.
🙂
Well lets just save time and call me a heretic already.
Nailed it. You’re a Blue Pill churchian.
Hear Ye! Hear Ye!
Let it be known to all in the Manosphere that from this day forward all ye who do not comply with theasdgamer’s book of PC “red pill” speech / think is, and I quote, “a Blue Pill churchian”.
You heretics, how dare you question theasdgamer’s book of PC “red pill” speech / think.
How dare you not bend to the will of theasdgamer and forgo the actual meaning of the term protect. Let it be know that from now on everyone must comply with the theasdgamer’s definition of “protect” and understand that when you use that term it AUTOMATICALLY implies “women on a pedestal”, and therefore any users of said term are “blue pill” white knights.
@2:29 pm Let it be know = Let it be known
For these women, my post wasn’t an assault, but protection.
Uh Oh!!!
Pingback: The three big elephants in the Christian dating and marriage room | Christianity and the manosphere
There’s nothing wrong with protecting one’s dependents. Or even those we depend on.
Corralling can only be done to herds. So unless someone has multiple spouses, they won’t be “corralling” them. You can’t “coralle” in the singular.
Christianity, Buddhism and some sects of Hinduism glorify the celibate life over the married family life.
Sikhism, Islam and Judaism glorify the married and family life over celibacy. Islam and Judaism forbid celibacy.
“Women need to be corralled to protect them from themselves.”
Thank you. I was hoping JDG would say it, tho. It shows the Blue Pill thinking behind the corral-protect language. How can you protect someone from themselves? The language makes no sense. It’s not a castle-moat figure of speech. Rather, women need to be corralled (locked up) to restrain Hypergamy, which is intrinsic to women. The corral figure of speech is about restraining women in order to restrain Hypergamy. No protection is implied in any of that. Adding protection to the dynamic is a White Knight reflex to make corralling more appealing to a Blue Pill mind.
Let’s think accurately about what we are aiming for. As Christians, we are trying to restrain Hypergamy but not eliminate sex, chastity within marriage being allowed. Women have a low steady-state libido, which spikes when around attractive men. (We are talking biology here–this phenomenon is intrinsic to women.) So we want to keep women away from attractive men in order to prevent this spike in women’s libido except in carefully monitored contexts.
There is no protection implied in any of this. If there is protection, then what is the threat? “Protecting someone from themselves” is nonsense. Gobbledygook. Codswallop. “Restrain sinful desire” is more accurate, but still misses the mark. “Restrain desire in order to promote chastity” might be as good as we can get.
Let’s think accurately.
Lyn87
feminism is all about extending the already-significant privileges and advantages enjoyed by UMC white women.
Paging Sheryl Sandburg…who if you recall explicitly endorsed the AF-BB mating strategy, to cheers of millions. Some may be saying “It can’t get much worse”. Rollo’s thoughts on open hypergamy say “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet”. How far can women’s sexual opportunities be expanded while men’s are restricted? We’ll be finding out over the next 10 years.
And churches won’t do diddly squat about it, either, at least the feminized ones won’t.
theasdgamer says:
August 29, 2015 at 6:16 pm
“Women need to be corralled to protect them from themselves.”
Thank you. I was hoping JDG would say it, tho.
JDG says:
August 28, 2015 at 2:35 pm
I understand how using the word “protect” can be misconstrued because of how feminists (left and right) misuse the term. That being said, I don’t believe there was any “blue pill” thinking in what I wrote. Being corralled by men is how women were / are protected.
There is no protection implied in any of this. If there is protection, then what is the threat? “Protecting someone from themselves” is nonsense.
We protect children from themselves all the time. It’s no secret that Patriarchy allows men to protect women (and civilization itself) from the disastrous fall out of unrestrained hypergamy. That doesn’t sound like nonsense to me, nor does it put women on a pedestal.
Somewhere else on the Globe, female education is getting a backlash
“However, after they graduate, many MBBS students, women in particular, quit the profession.”
That’s odd, the female med school graduates over here are doing the same thing. Who would have thunk it? The enlightened west doesn’t seem to mind though. There’ll be no up front money from the strong independent western girls.
Give it up, adsgamer, you’re starting to sound like a parody of college-age SJW’s looking for ways to declare themselves “TRIGGERED!” by normal, everyday words. JDG isn’t a pedestalizer, and it is absurd of you to continue in this vein. I tried to give you a way out at 11:09 – thinking that you were just talking past each other. You should have taken it.
People are constrained and restrained (“corralled,” if you will) to protect them from doing harm to themselves all the time. To corral is to restrain the ability of something or someone to roam free, and may be done for any number of reasons, including to prevent them from coming to harm due to their own negligence in avoiding danger. If you’ve ever seen a baby gate at the top of a flight of stairs you know what I mean.
@theasdgamer
“What you say might be correct, but it also might not. We have no basis to know SINCE YOU NEVER FAKKING OFFERED ANY SUPPORT FOR YOUR CONCLUSION.”
Hmmm. Well is it not true the name of things ought to be understood according to common usage, not according to the opinions of individuals? And why all the capital letters?
“Wanker”
Mischaracterisation is a feminists tactic. So why are you using it?
PokeSalad at 8:21:
That was great! 🙂
Lyn87 and theasdGamer:
Thanks for your comments about your own marriages. It is encouraging to see that there are a few good marriages out there.
“It is encouraging to see that there are a few good marriages out there.”
?? Fully 60% of all marriages do NOT end in the divorce courts. Not sure how you got the idea (given that there are over 60 million marriages in this country) that only ‘a few’ are ‘good’.
Women have a low steady-state libido, which spikes when around attractive men. (We are talking biology here–this phenomenon is intrinsic to women.)
I know a lot has been written about biology, as if biology is the final determinant of our behavior.
Well, it is not. No one is called to follow biology. We are to use our higher senses to judge biology, and to permit or disallow its instincts. God has not made us to be at the mercy of our biology, but to reign it in and corral it, if you will. Following biology is the surest and fastest way to hell.
So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live by the dictates of your nature, you will die [eternally]. But if through the power of the Spirit you put to death the deeds of your sinful nature, you will live [eternally].
Romans 8:12,13
Pingback: Dalrock Hurting Women | Secular Patriarchy
@Art Deco
… Because I have eyes to see, and ears to hear. I am fully aware that most wives, and many husbands, do not even have what I would see as basic respect for each other.
They may not be divorced, but a husband who does not treat his wife with respect is hardly enabling a healthy marriage. Or if not giving her the love commanded (which does not mean giving her what she wants).
They may not be divorced, but a wife who shows contempt for her husband is hardly enabling a healthy marriage. Or if she refuses him sex more than rarely, or chooses to make herself obese or otherwise detestable so he cannot desire her.
I would not want the vast majority of wives I see. That’s how.
But you are correct. About half of marriages appear to not end in divorce. Although, as indicated, this does nothing to indicate the same proportion of marriages are healthy.
Interesting article Dave.
The author mentions the ratios of college educated men and college educated women, they also mention in general the differing mindsets produced for men and women who get a college education. That is where the rub is for college educated women.
A man can’t major in men’s studies for starters, and typically, being expected to be a provider, the majority of male college students aren’t graduating with navel-gazing majors in the same proportion as female college students. So, even if it were a perfect proportion of men and women getting college educations, even if women could restrict their dating pool to only college educated men without narrowing their chances… their chances are narrowed anyways. College turns out, more often than not, women with a self absorbed point of view. At the same time college, most of the time, does not turn out men whose prime interest in a woman is to obtain a deity to worship… so the mindset of college educated men and women tend, on average, to not be complimentary in a fashion that would produce successful marriages.
It isn’t demographics, it’s viewpoints that are the biggest problem. Women who aren’t self-absorbed tend to be married. I’ve met plenty of them. I’ve met a few self-absorbed women who managed to get married too, but the more generous/humble women are married. If it’s really an important issue to Mormons and Orthodox Jews, they should make a better efforts at raising women with good character, and in general discourage the their girls from consuming victim-porn while growing up. Same goes for Catholics and Protestants of course, but the article was speaking in regards to Mormons and Orthodox Jews.
…and this line in the article is gold: “The dream for the Mormon man is to get married and have six kids. As he ages, his dream never changes. But when you’re a thirty-seven-year-old woman, you’ve already aged out of that dream.”
It isn’t just Mormon men. Sure, some of my friends stopped at two… but most men interested in marrying are interested in having children. Young women who intend to marry should give that some consideration in their twenties, when most nowadays are more interested in ‘finding themselves (next to a new man each morning)’. I feel bad for women who hit forty without being married, and at the same time I find myself asking, “What did you think was going to happen, when you repeatedly indulged your hypergamy in your twenties? What did you think was going to happen when you repeatedly pursued men as place holders in your thirties? Do you really think you’ve earned commitment and love, after scoffing at both for so long?”
Pingback: Father Knows Best: End of August Linkfest | Patriactionary
“College turns out, more often than not, women with a self absorbed point of view. …Women who aren’t self-absorbed tend to be married. ”
The demographic most likely to get married and stay married though is the college graduated, upper middle class professional demographic, so how would you explain that?
[D: IQ]
That’s an interesting question… Dalrock probably has the answer there, but now I’m tumbling it around in my head.
Are we lumping a college graduate of today with college graduates of the past? In the past, most men and women graduating college were more financially stable (and came from more financial security) than those of the current era. They could afford more self absorption without emptying a couple’s resources. The ‘me; majors are a pretty recent development at colleges as well. That’s my estimation anyways, until I get a look at some raw data.
Are college educated folks in their 50’s and 60’s more or less successful at marriage than college educated folks in their 30’s and 40’s? If marriage becomes more fragile in the latter group, I think my estimation of the ‘why’ holds up.