What we commonly know as chivalry and what literary scholars call courtly love has two aspects. One is a religious/moral philosophy, and the other is a method of seduction (game). To date I’ve been focusing on the religious/moral side, but today I’ll touch on the game side. On the game side chivalry is all about what Rollo calls negotiating desire (LSFW). From Harvard’s page on De Amore (1184-86):
[Since love is often acquired by fluency in speech, Andreas next provides his readers with a series of sample dialogues, suitable to the various classes — plebian (gentry), noble, and most noble.]
First Dialogue
A plebian (gentleman) speaks with a woman of the same class.[He greets his lady and praises her beauty; she replies that he is trying to flatter her, since she is not beautiful:]
The woman says: Your words seem to be false, since I do not have a beautiful figure. Yet you extol me as more beautiful than other women.The man says: The custom of the wise is never to praise their own beauty . . . And if you think yourself not beautiful, then you should consider me a true lover, since your beauty seems to me to be greater than that of all other women; love makes even an ugly woman seem beautiful to her lover. . .
The woman says: Although, your virtue is greatly to be praised, I am young and I shudder at the thought of the embraces of old men.
The man says: Certainly old age is not to be blamed . . . [ he explains that his many years have enabled him to do more noble deeds than would be possible for a young man.]
Third Dialogue
A plebian (gentleman) speaks with a woman of the higher nobilityThe man says: If a man of the middle class seeks to join himself in love with a women of the higher nobility, he ought to have a multitude of good qualities, for in order for a lower-born man to be worthy to seek the love of a higher born woman, he should be filled with inumerable good qualities, and an infinite number of good deeds should extol him. . . .
. . . Thus if, after a long period of proof, he is found worthy of love, a woman of the higher nobility may choose a plebian (gentlemen) as her lover. . .
[A sample dialogue is given; the man begs the lady to accept his service as a lover. The lady says that she is not pleased that he ranks so far beneath her.]
See the rest at the link above.
See Also:
So basically it goes back to ‘you can’t negotiate desire’.
That’s fine…better to be a roof for a woman who wants it than one who doesn’t or one who wants to destroy it.
This is awesome
If things don’t work out for me and the wife I’m totally using this to bag an ugly rich chick
This is how I understood relationships before finding Dalrock and Rollo.
Church culture and most secular culture are hand in hand on this. The only places that tell the truth look taboo to Christians (some R rated movies and comedy, PUA material), so it is a pretty effective delusion.
Dalrock, another variation of this chivalry game is in the film Knight’s Tale, where the protagonist’s love interest insists he deliberately lose a jousting match to prove his love for her. He tells her “I will not lose.” She replies, “then you do not love me.”
Actual line by her in the film: Losing would show obedience to your lover and not yourself!
The examples you listed sounded like DHV to me. The woman shit-tests, the man pretends not to notice and boldly persists with DHV material. What am I not seeing.
Eternal Truths are evergreen. Heheh.
Fascinating. So many people object to game because it’s unchivalrous, and yet chivalry itself had/was a form of game suitable for their society.
@Mycroft Jones
I assume the point is that chivalry is little to no better than game. This post is like a medieval version of Roosh or Chateau Heartiste.
Surprisingly, chivalry has mostly the same goals, just different technique. So to the extent that people reject the one due to loyalty to the other, they should understand that chivalry is not moral and its goals are hardly any different than game’s.
@ The Question
That scene is straight out of “Lancelot, the Knight of the Cart”.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Lancelot,_the_Knight_of_the_Cart
I’m pretty sure Dalrock covered that in one of his posts on chivalry.
Love to see Dalrock and Rollo disect the whole Chivalry topic on something like Red Pill 101.
This video reminds me what triggered the women who heard “Men prefer debt free virgins…”
“Church culture and most secular culture are hand in hand on this. The only places that tell the truth look taboo to Christians (some R rated movies and comedy, PUA material), so it is a pretty effective delusion.”
When folks choose delusion over the obvious and objective truth, God does not change the person, nor the nation, nor the world. He simply fuel-injects their broken carburetors.
Same with Evie in the Garden. Of free will she chose the delusion of Equality with both God, and with the man. God could have just wiped it outta her consciousness — and that of succeeding females — but that infringes on the free will given to people and angels.
No, instead He juiced the Rebel Factor WAY on up, putting more distance between Himself and the creature. Gave females turbo delusion after that. Attempting to bully God never works out well.
2 Thess. 2 was composed specifically with us — in these end times — in mind:
“And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (v. 8-12)
The strong delusion God placed on Eve/females at the beginning of this mess repeats in the last days, when the very self-serving delusions explicated on this site serve as planks in the antichrist’s rise and establishment — the Global Order so desired by the FeMarxists and allied interests. ‘Finishing the iniquity’ as Scripture might put it.
Note: those who preferred pleasure in their unrighteousness (= iniquity) receive a boost to their present delusion, because they WOULD NOT SUFFER THE TRUTH. U want it, U gots it.
This is re-enforced numerous times in the Book of Revelation, where yet again, God and His servants identify and tag those hating the truth, and those seeking/loving it. This is the major dividing-line between the Kingdom-bound, and the damned. And it’s playing out in the world right before your ears and eyes.
I don’t bother with poetry, that’s for fags. Where’s the part where she fetches my socks?
Pingback: Chivalry Game: How to negotiate desire. | Reaction Times
An another note
A “game” of males playing sychophant, and creating a monumentally messed up sexual relations code in the process. There are more dignified games.
After consideration of the “game” described in the De Amore, a text many believe was dictated by the gynocentric Marie, it’s author Andreas Cappelanus added a postscript of his own describing the rules as a bunch of shite. He added that the very same rules of love in the De Amore should be thoroughly avoided and trampled under a man’s feet.
https://gynocentrism.com/2013/08/03/mgtow-12th-century-style/
Interestingly, a radical feminist is now demanding chivalry to help fight transgenderism. Demonstrating Dalrock’s Law of Feminism, she expresses concern that “If anyone can be a woman, the classification “woman” is diluted.”
Here is an excerpt from the article “Radical Feminist Demands Chivalry! Wants Men to Help Fight “Transgenderism”:
“Then there’s the irony of feminists — who made famous the line “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” — calling on men for help with the trans plans. This wasn’t lost on the commenters under the PJ Media article, either, with one quipping, “A militant, lesbian, man-hating … feminist wants real men to ‘stand up for women’. Now that’s funny. I thought masculinity was toxic.”
For decades, feminists traded in misandry, impugning men and telling lies (e.g., on the intersex wage gap, domestic violence, etc.) designed to demonize them. To the point, they also cast chivalry as demeaning, and even holding a door for the wrong woman could bring a tongue lashing. But now they want some knights in shining armor — to rent, not buy.”
The full article can be read here: https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/item/31337-radical-feminist-demands-chivalry-wants-men-to-help-fight-transgenderism
@ King Alfred
The irony is that transgenderism is a natural, logical consequence of feminism. Feminists insisted for decades that femininity and masculinity are merely cultural constructs. They’re not innate. There are no innate differences between men and women. Therefore, if there are more male than female engineers, it has to be a result of cultural misogyny. It can’t be a result of innate biological differences between men and women. And if you say otherwise, you’re a misogynist.
But if there are no innate differences between men and women, then the words “man” and “woman” are meaningless, because they are categories, and the whole point of categories is that things that fit in one category are innately different from the things that fit in a separate category.
Therefore, there is no logical objection to a “man” calling himself a “woman”, because feminists (i.e., women) destroyed that logical objection.
Feminists created this monster. Let them deal with it.
Side note: Kara Dansky is the “spokeswoman for Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF)”. What is a female wolf? It’s a bitch. Kara Dansky and her ilk self-identify as bitches. Think about that.
At least the ugly women of their time would admit it.
It is really interesting how the more indifferent, self-centered, pre-occupied, and the less available, assistive and deferential you are, the more attractive you become to women. The less you say, the better you are in their eyes.
It’s the exact opposite of the kneeling, placating knight seeking even the slighted token of the lady’s favor. She doesn’t have to look at me. If only she would innocently and accidentally drop her handkerchief, so I could be of immediate service!!!
Ah, a close reading of the linked article about Andreas’ work revealed the following:
“In Book II the Countess of Champagne had been asked to settle the problem of whether love is possible between a man and wife. She replied in a formal letter, that love between husband and wife is impossible and that jealousy is absolutely required by love.”
There’s your trouble. Love is impossible between a husband and wife, according to chivalry / courtly love. No wonder its adoption into the Church has been so devastating to marriages!
Yet another post about medieval knights? Was hoping Dalrock would get over this riff by now so we can get back to discussing Current Year.
I’ll see myself out.
@Hmm
I thought you were going to say the problem is it is advice on how to seduce a woman coming from a woman.
On both the moral and practical (game) fronts, the core problem is that it inverts the roles of biblical marriage. When courtly love first was introduced, it was understood that you can’t expect a man to submit to his wife. Therefore it could only be expressed as adultery. When we tried to tame courtly love by moving it into marriage, we by necessity inverted the roles of husband and wife, so that now everyone agrees that a husband must submit to his wife in fear and reverence. We lie about this as we are doing it, but it is what we are doing. So whether you call it “house despot” theology or “aroma of love” or submitting to her “soul essence”, it is what we now believe.
@Kid Charlemagne
When a man who takes his moniker from a medieval knight complains that I’m discussing medieval knights too much, it must be time to move on. I have a series of posts in process from an email interview I’ve been participating in. The interview has been cutting into my blogging creative energies without producing posts so far, but that should be reversing shortly. I also have some more on the loud and proud complementarians.
Kid Charlemagne
Yet another post about medieval knights? Was hoping Dalrock would get over this riff by now so we can get back to discussing Current Year.
Gosh, that whole Current Year thing would be a great topic for your own blog…
constraindlocus
Remarkable, is it not? Almost as though men and women are different deep inside the brain, and each responds to certain external stimuli in a different way.
Feminists and tradcons equally are enraged by the very idea, of course.
He’s the last virgin for a reason. Now an alternative ending could be him slashing alpha boys tires so they can’t leave, sneaking back into the party unnoticed, and while alpha boy ends up raging on the front lawn in front of everyone calmly walk up next to the girl and boldly take her hand in his. Worked for me my junior year.
One of the things I remain confounded about in the discussion about “game” (one day I will give in and recognize this is a thing) has to do with the intent of the so called “beta orbiter.” Dalrock—if this comment doesn’t flow here or is not appropriate please move or whatever
That is, I will concede that lift chasing and the lift are real things. Also, I think this should be avoided at all costs. But I must further concede that when a woman pats you on your head for saying something “chivalrous” (read: flattering) it feels great. In fact, in therapy sessions with women, I have from time to time been told things like “oh, I wish my husband was like you” or “why can’t I find a guy like you? Then all this would be solved.” My training, (and my ethics code) tells me that these are opportunities to redirect—and to use therapeutically as you process the interpersonal dynamic that the patient just vomited out on you. Even with women that you don’t find particularly attractive, its still nice.
However, in absolutely zero of those cases, does it occur to me that sex is going to happen. It just never crosses my mind.
When I see beta orbiting (curiously, most of those guys I met in college and graduate school) I cringe. Then I think to myself “you don’t actually think that is going to work right? I mean, I get that its nice to fish for compliments from women, but at no point in this interaction is your P going in the V. You know that right?”
So then I conclude, maybe they don’t really mean it? I don’t know, its weird.
Because it seems like if a woman has decided she wants you that way, you get a pretty clear signal, almost instantly. And in fact, that’s pretty much the only exception to the rule here. At that point, it doesn’t really matter what you say. You could tell her that her makeup looks ridiculous or that she is the most beautiful thing you have ever seen. Either way, she has already played out the sexual scenario in her head and is hoping you will just say “hey. Why are your clothes sill on?”
So what’s the deal with the orbiting behavior. (Weak AMOGING, over the top flattery, etc). Do “we” conceptualize this is an actual sexual strategy or is it something else. How do you help men get out of that cycle?
Couple of periods there where there should be question marks
“Get along, get along Kid Charlemagne
Get along Kid Charlemagne”
No Medieval Knight….more like Steely Dan’s older drug dealer outlaw.
Hey Dalrock, have you seen Wreck it Ralph 2? It’s amazing. In number 1 Ralph helped the little girl get her life back… In number 2 she gets bored of him and leaves to join a biker gang in an anarchy chaos city. Literally. It includes messages for Ralph like “you don’t own her!” and other gems.
Off Topic: Being forced to pay for a tranny’s laser hair removal.
https://theothermccain.com/2019/01/31/a-right-to-laser-hair-removal/
Well, that’s because you’re a dude, “Miss” Sampson, and nothing will change that.
By the way, I’ve noticed a disturbing trend. Increasingly, I encounter amorphous obese people of indeterminate sex. “Miss” Sampson fits that description. It’s disconcerting.
@American
What would be the point? Isn’t it better to be a virgin than married to a whore?
@Scott
Suppose you had never been a recipient of that clear signal. You’d might misinterpret her flattery as an advance if you don’t know the former even exists.
Second, it’s not a universal truth that nice guys don’t get a girl; Beta Bucks, last chair remaining, etc. These men are observed by younger men and the younger men don’t know the background.
@Dal – “I thought you were going to say the problem is it is advice on how to seduce a woman coming from a woman.”
Nah – I learned early that dating advice from women was intended to keep me out of the dating pool, not help me. If you asked for advice, you were a loser anyway. The jocks and dark triad guys neither needed it or asked. Nor obeyed, nor worshipped.
Unless women in Eleanor’s era were made of different stuff, it’s all bad advice.
@Hmm
Song of Solomon is a much better love story.
Celebrating the romantic love of husband and wife
I am convinced (now) that my exwife only married me because she was afraid of becoming the last woman in our smaller church without a husband. I really wish I had realized this at the time, but my naivety caused my poor results. My force of personality pushed through for many years, but her failure to really bond and see us as a married couple ultimately caused the result I face now.
That definitely fits with Cane’s hypothesis.
“Isn’t it better to be a virgin than married to a whore?”
^ Option 3: I didn’t marry her. I enjoyed her for a short while before moving on. You can’t always get what you want friend but if you try sometimes you might find that you get what you need.
I doesn’t strike me as “game” so much as a type of sexual fetish that relishes subordination to and humiliation before the object of desire.
A lot less people would be interested in undergoing a transgender treatment if they had to pay for it themselves, instead of other tax- and/or health insurance payers now having to pay it for them.
“A lot less people would be interested in undergoing a transgender treatment if they had to pay for it themselves, instead of other tax- and/or health insurance payers now having to pay it for them.”
^ FACT!
@American
I think the same could also be said for the now en vogue “egg freezing” and IVF treatments.
Both of these procedures tend to fail at very high rates due to the patient’s age, her sub-optimal hormonal levels at age 30+, and the Detroit-like garage they still call a uterus into which these ovum are sadly placed.
The same could also be said of the inverse procedure that the vast majority of women tend not to pay for at all, namely abortions.
“I think the same could also be said for the now en vogue “egg freezing” and IVF treatments… The same could also be said of the inverse procedure that the vast majority of women tend not to pay for at all, namely abortions.”
^ FACT!
As a Christian today, I align with my pro-life brethren though I am greatly disconcerted at the thought of so many MORE children being born to undesirable single females who fully intend to use government social services as their “husband” and “father.” They will, for as long as they are permitted, as certainly as the earth orbits the sun. And that’s obviously a terrible socioeconomic for taxpayers, a terrible environment to bring up children in, and the end for us politically when so many new feral disordered Democrats join the old feral disordered Democrats in voting booths.
“. . . Thus if, after a long period of proof, he is found worthy of love, a woman of the higher nobility may choose a plebian (gentlemen) as her lover. . .
[A sample dialogue is given; the man begs the lady to accept his service as a lover. The lady says that she is not pleased that he ranks so far beneath her.] ”
…and the modern woman tortures herself with his penis through that ‘long period of proof’, as is her right, since she IS of the higher nobility and he is plebeian….
…of course it is the woman of higher nobility’s right to torture herself on the penis of another, and another and another, in her erstwhile quest for a man worthy of her true love.
…after which she can rest from torturing herself on various penises so, and gain greatly in malodourousness and corpulence, for she has found her….husband…
@American
I don’t care what you did or did not do. That’s why I framed the question away from you and towards what is good or evil. Whoremongering is also foolish and evil.
@Billy S
That’s a painful fact to face. Good on you, man.
@Oscar:
I agree that transgenderism is a natural consequence of feminism, but the reality is that feminists never actually believed their own proclamations of equality and therefore feel threatened by transgenders. They were never after equality. In 1913, Almroth Wright wrote in The Unexpurgated Case Against Woman Suffrage: “Let us consider chivalry, first, from the standpoint of the woman suffragist. Her notion of chivalry is that man should accept every disadvantageous offer which may be made to him by woman.”
Feminists believe the ideas of “equality” and “sex roles as a cultural construct” only to the extent to which they benefit from them at any given moment. From the beginning, feminism was about women retaining their female privileges while having male power conferred upon them, and simultaneously accepting the responsibilities of neither sex. Stated bluntly, they wanted absolute power without any accompanying responsibility, and in large measure they have achieved their goal. Claims of equality can be demonstrated to be mere subterfuge by observing their actions rather than their words. Radical feminists are angry at transgenders precisely because the feminists don’t believe in equality. They are upset that transgenders are usurping their position of supremacy. So, they want chivalrous men to put transgenders back in their place so authentic women don’t have to share their thrones. Logical consistency is not part of their ideology, despite their claims. Hence their anger at a natural consequence of their ideology.
@ King Alfred
Dude, I’m well aware that feminism is a lie, and feminists are liars. No, feminism isn’t about “equality” (whatever that means – the definition changes constantly). Feminism is a Marxist ideology that seeks to empower government by destroying families. And it destroys families by stoking female resentment against men, particularly husbands and fathers.
Feminists never thought to take their ideology to its natural, logical conclusion. It never occurred to them. Nor does it occur to any of the other grievance groups.
The Marxist revolution always eats its own. Always. They all think they’re Lenin. It never occurs to them that there can only be one Lenin, which means most of them are actually Trotsky with an ice pick in his ear, or Molotov’s wife, in the gulag.
I doesn’t strike me as “game” so much as a type of sexual fetish that relishes subordination to and humiliation before the object of desire.
It can become that, yes. There’s little doubt that the popularity of “femdom” sexual fetishes in the West (i.e., the former Christendom) has to do with the fact that these fetishes “riff on” a sexualization of the broader societal norm of chivalry when it comes to male/female relations. A fetish “dominatrix” is simply a festishizes, sexualized woman on a pedestal to whose absolute whims the submissive is devoted, but with whom sexuality is not consummated in full. Male fetishes are often sexualizations of lifer experiences, and in this case we can see a popular sexual fetish that results from the sexualization of the broader cultural norm of chivalry.
It has to be remembered, though, that the riff is a riff — the underlying norm is the context, the basis, on which the riff is being produced. Chivalry is the underlying basis — femdom is simply a sexual fetish that riffs on it.
@Oscar
Thank you for your comments. Obviously, most of us here are thoroughly aware of the lies of feminism. My point was that you and I can easily see through the thin veneer of logic wrapped around feminist ideology, but the adherents of feminism and the other movements you cited cannot, or more likely are not honest enough to acknowledge their true motives and beliefs. This is why feminist complaints about natural consequences of their proclaimed ideology are such a powerful weapon against their position. It allows us to say, as you did, “You got what you asked for. Now why are you complaining?” This is where the veil falls off and any rational person can see the full extent of their ugliness.
@Cane Caldo –
“Whoremongering is also foolish and evil.”
Why is every other “monger” one who sells, whereas a “whoremonger” is one who purchases whores?
Game saves opioid addicts, and whoremongers too!
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2019/01/31/game-can-save-opioid-addicts/
American said:
As a Christian today, I align with my pro-life brethren though I am greatly disconcerted at the thought of so many MORE children being born to undesirable single females who fully intend to use government social services as their “husband” and “father.” They will, for as long as they are permitted, as certainly as the earth orbits the sun. And that’s obviously a terrible socioeconomic for taxpayers, a terrible environment to bring up children in, and the end for us politically when so many new feral disordered Democrats join the old feral disordered Democrats in voting booths.
I am sure many of these women supported or had abortions. They get the children they deserve. None hopefully.
I am often struck by the way extra-marital sexual behaviour mirrors society; thus Italian Porn to choose an example usually involves Roman Catholic Nuns. I notice the way Dominatrixes (many of whom are moonlighting Nurses) always insist that they are not Prostitutes as they do not sell sexual favours and thus are not breaking the law. Their logic strikes me as unanaswerable. Whether men seek out their services because of societal female pedestalization or because men grow tired of the masculine standards which they operate under daily must remain uncertain.
I was reading yesterday in Mandeville (1723) where he writes of his home city Amsterdam that the large number of prostitutes in that city (for servicing merchant-seamen away for months at sea) protected the decent single women of that town from unwanted sexual advances. This would doubtless to Mandeville’s surprise now be regarded by the decent young women of Amsterdam as sexist and be likely to provoke a slut-walk. In my observation Prostitutes (though not in Amsterdam where they are on display behind glass doors) dress far more modestly than as can be observed on any Friday night the average young woman – no street walkers you see where I live.
@ King Alfred
Agreed. And feminists aren’t the people we need to convince. They’re lost causes. Men – especially young Christian men – are the ones we need to convince.
I assume you understand that, but it bears repeating for those who don’t.
@Opus – “I was reading yesterday in Mandeville (1723) where he writes of his home city Amsterdam that the large number of prostitutes in that city (for servicing merchant-seamen away for months at sea) protected the decent single women of that town from unwanted sexual advances.”
Even the Church Fathers St. Augustine and St. Thomas knew this fact. Today, the “good” girls and “bad” girls are one in the same.
Why is every other “monger” one who sells, whereas a “whoremonger” is one who purchases whores?
How would you characterize a “warmonger?”
@PokeSalad – How would you characterize a “warmonger?”
Isn’t it one who “sells” the idea of war? It isn’t the soldier.
According to thefreedictionary.com, the etymology of monger is someone who deals or trades in the subject; war, whores, fish, whatever.
Commentmongers.
What protects the single women is marriage, not legalized prostitution. Aquinas and Augustine were quite insane and unrighteous on this issue.
@MJ
A distorted view of sex and the body influenced by Manichaeism and/or other gnostic sects has caused much harm to the (members of the) church.
Just go with:
The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife. Do not deprive one another, except by mutual consent and for a time, so you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again, so that Satan will not tempt you through your lack of self-control.
“Marital duty”, “authority over your spouse’s body”, “do not deprive, except by MUTUAL consent AND for a time”; when was the last time you heard a sermon about that?
King Alfred,
You assume logic will win anyone over. Many Christian women think they don’t support feminism, yet will almost always support a man over a woman in a divorce, as one example. Pointing out the poverty that comes to that woman will still get blamed on the man, whatever the truth/logic says.
People will stay ignorant until they have a compelling reason to not be ignorant. We have not come anywhere near that point yet, unfortunately.
Well this is interesting; to see both Aquinas and Augustine castigated for immorality. They, I suspect, like Mandeville, lived in a time of considerable female prostitution and thus assuming that men could not control their urges assumed that Prostitution in large numbers was inevitable and the lesser of two evils. This is surely Misandry and the sort of thing one these days hears from Feminists. Rampant Prostitution is not, however, inevitable; indeed in England at the present moment and throughout my life time although there have been some women who would provide sexual favours for money the numbers so involved are and were quite small and as I understand it considerably lower than in the Eighteenth Century (the time of Clelands Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure better known as Fanny Hill and one must also not forget also from the 1740s the similar though less explicit Pamela of Richardson – the 50 shades of its day but far better written). Shaw, in Mrs Warren’s Profession sought to not merely justify but approve of Mrs Warren’s choice of ‘profession’ on the usual absurd class-obsessed socialists ground and in Love on the Dole (which perhaps Americans don’t now) the heroine marrying during the depression and for money is treated by her own impoverished family as a whore but it has to be said in the movie Deborah Kerr makes (and you know it is coming) the most dramatically effective speech in defence of her choice. In Manchester in the early 1930s which is where LotD is set there was real poverty. More of that White privilege I suppose.
I have some considerable liking for Prostitutes; they are not (in the main) like so many women judgemental (they cannot afford to be) and have a far greater understanding and empathy for men than other females – as I said many seem to be Nurses. At this point I have to add that I was making my enquiries merely for the purposes of research and left before any sordidness took place (at least that is my story).
@BillyS
Logic never wins with liars, and feminists are liars. However, men and sometimes women can be persuaded when they are able to clearly see the liars caught in their lies. The fundamental reason most women and churches cannot, or will not see that feminism is founded in lies is that they are benefitting too much from the ideology to care that it is false. You are correct that most people must feel the consequences of falsehood before they will begin to react to it. Logic and facts will never make most of them care. For example, the long-debunked “gender gap” in pay still gets press time because it enables underperforming women to extort more from their employers. Facts don’t matter; feminists only care that benefits accrue to them.
This is where the courts, the legislatures, the executive branch, and the woman worshipping societies- ahem- “churches” have failed so miserably. They first ignored, then inverted biblical teachings on marriage. Rational men (and a few rational women) are unable to ignore the blatant disregard for truth. But the rebellious women and their enforcers will never admit the truth because they are benefitting too much from their racket.
Simply put, those who can see through the lies have no power to correct them, and those who have the power have no desire to correct their errors. Even those individuals and organizations that recognize the destruction of families as the cause of most societal ills lack the courage to actually attack -or even acknowledge- the root cause: feminism. So they are doomed to forever swipe at the branches, but never kill the root.
@King Alfred
”So they are doomed to forever swipe at the branches, but never kill the root.”
Not to worry Jesus walks among the Lampstands and will utterly uproot this evil.
For why are we finding about Chivalry and its insidious nature now?
Perhaps God has judged it right to begin the process of removing this evil at this time after 800 years.
Previously no one have seen this as far as as we know.
@info:
On the contrary, intelligent observers of past centuries have seen chivalry for the abomination it is. Nineteenth Century philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer in his treatise “On Women” wrote:
“They are the sexus sequior, the second sex in every respect, therefore their weaknesses should be spared, but to treat women with extreme reverence is ridiculous, and lowers us in their own eyes. When nature divided the human race into two parts, she did not cut it exactly through the middle! The difference between the positive and negative poles, according to polarity, is not merely qualitative but also quantitative. And it was in this light that the ancients and people of the East regarded woman; they recognised her true position better than we, with our old French ideas of gallantry and absurd veneration, that highest product of Christian-Teutonic stupidity. These ideas have only served to make them arrogant and imperious, to such an extent as to remind one at times of the holy apes in Benares, who, in the consciousness of their holiness and inviolability, think they can do anything and everything they please.”
Chivalry (or “gallantry” here) has been regarded as the ultimate “toxic masculinity” by wise men for at least two centuries. But you are correct, chivalry does not appear to have every yielded such widespread devastation in past generations. Never before has its poisonous fruit been more exposed for what it truly is.
“Never before has its poisonous fruit been more exposed for what it truly is.”
I hasten to add that Dalrock has performed a monumental service to us all in unmasking the poison of chivalry and all its devastating effects as they unfold before our very eyes. In light of past and present evidence on the subject, I fail to see how any honest person can still regard chivalry as anything other than an abomination.
Seems like Schopenhauer was on to something!
@Paul
Indeed. Chivalrous pedestalization of women has much more in common with pornography than with biblical teachings. Perhaps we should call it “spiritual pornography.” Food for thought.
Schopenhauer’s treatise can be read in full at
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_Women
interesting stuf
You said: “Marital duty”, “authority over your spouse’s body”, “do not deprive, except by MUTUAL consent AND for a time”; when was the last time you heard a sermon about that?
It may have changed, but when I was a child growing up as a Jehovah’s Witness, they had sermons on this at least once a year, if not more often. On the local level they had a presbyterian structure, and the elders were pretty aware of human nature. Still cucked though. They let the woman get away with a lot of whoredom but got rid of males at the slightest opportunity.
@info Chivalry is not the root of the problem. But it is much closer to the root. Chivalry is an opportunistic infection enabled by the problem. The problem is unwillingness to take the Scriptures literally. Aquinas and Augustine both guilty of this, as indeed the majority of the Church through the ages. The delusion promised in Thessalonians was coming to pass even while the apostles yet lived. By the time of Constantine the delusion was complete, enforced by the deadly will of Rome/Babel, slaughtering the literalists and lumping them among the heretics by using labels like “Pelagian” and “Arian”.
@MJ JW have yearly sermons on it? At least they get some things right.
@Paul they had to get some things right or they wouldn’t have survived as a group for more than 100 years. They might well follow the trajectory of the Methodists and Presbyterians, if they last that long. If you have a lot of converts, you can’t let the women all be born again virgins. Confess and repent is a big part of the initiation and entry to the group. This makes sense, and fits with the early Church; if a harlot can’t bring herself to confess publicly her sin, then odds are much greater she will backslide after baptism.
Dalrock, your series on chivalry is fascinating. Please continue when you get the chance.
I wish I could contribute something useful for you, but while my education should’ve included courtly love and the troubadours, I mentally checked out right around the time we hit Canterbury. Chaucer in the original was like getting kicked in the fucking nuts, then drowned in NyQuil. Never again. Ancien francais, no way.
That is my loss, and irrelevant, however, as I think you are hitting on something great here: picking out a gleaming golden thread from the diabolical subvert-invert tapestry.
Someone up-thread mentioned etymology. Interestingly, you can spot contemporaneous semantic inversions in the history of our language.
For instance, if you follow the evolution of the word ‘nice’ from latin into taco-ebonics you get something like:
dangerously ignorant, hope that guy gets fragged (antiquity)
foolish, ingenuous (late antiquity)
childlike, silly (medieval)
dainty, finely-wrought (modernity, dawn of ‘enlightenment’)
pleasant, pleasing (suprisingly late, maybe georgian-era english– Dr. Johnson missed the change– to present)
(soygoy cloy, feminist whippingboy (near future))
Note the semantic flip-flop that happens post-renaissance: fool to cool.
A softening or neutering happens around the same time the cuck-courtiers were penning their tales of autistic-gerontic anti-game and knight’s devil’s threesomes.
Chivalry: proto-chick lit/slash fiction. THEY TURNED THE FRIGGIN KNIGHTS GAY.
Also, note that female literary engagement, their participation in intellectual life, begins right at the inflection point.