Commenter Bob asked the following on Badger’s A Reply To Cadence on Sex, Commitment and Spinning Plates:
I just have to say, as a Christian man, I find it near impossible not to have sex with Christian women by like the 5 date. This is because they seem to expect it and reject you if you don’t make a move. I don’t get it. Most Christian women aren’t better than nonchristian women. I’m dating 3 Christian girls now and one is already inviting me to basically get drunk and stay the night (explicit invite) for the second freakin date. If I tell her no I want to wait, I’ll lose her altogether. It’s similar with the other women. Women want passion, and of you don’t provide it and escalate thy lose interest. It sucks because I just want a Christian wife and I get caught up in banging women who aren’t even my girlfriend yet. I don’t know how to go about this. It sucks being alone and on a carnal level it feels great to sleep with women, but I hate offending God and feel guilty about it. Do I just sleep with 1 then try to artfully escalate to marriage ASAP? Seems like a bad idea but anything beats sinning or being lonely and needy.
This is a tough question. Let’s consult the wisdom of modern Christian leaders. Here is what the Purity Bear has to say (H/T Rollo Tomassi):
According to that video, if you find a woman who wants to have sex on the first date, marry her!
I still wasn’t sure, so I thought I’d get a second opinion from he-man Mark Driscoll:
There you have it. Most men are pigs, and the handful of men who aren’t are tired of picking up after the rest. Man up and marry those sluts!
Blimey! Welli, well, well…we truly are up S*it Creek without a paddle. It would seem to me…that christian men are damned whatever they do. Screw around – ye engage in sinful fornication. Man up and marry a “christian” slut you are on direct course for divorce rape. Either way you turn you are essentially…screweed. Ours, then, is the Age of Catch 22, imo.
The third alternative, however, might be to go for a virgin Philippino bride? Afaik they are pretty christian there (Catholic) and meeting a nubile and chaste virgin is still possible. Might be a way out of this connundrum.
OT:
Never ye fear, brothers. You man children are not alone, no longer. The “Man up” epidemic has reached Germany:
http://umslopogaas.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/achtung-seien-sie-ein-mann-man-up-epidemic-reaches-germany/
Haha, it’s all a bit tiring, isn’t it?
Christianity, can be, for a woman, an invisible anti-slut shield, however like most invisible things it is not very effective, indeed (as I have said before – somewhere in the blog-o-sphere) whenever I meet a Christian woman, (not often) I praise the Lord, as I know that she really wants to have sex, and is as the Bard said, ‘protesting too much’. It all reminds me of that ex-gf of mine who, as a devout Christain went to Scotland to save the Scots from Drink (a task doomed to failure) became, herself, inebriated and lost her virginity to the hotel manager, but she never married him (or the hundreds who came after).
I would therefore like to draw to Dalrock’s attention devout Christian, Count Leo Tolstoy; specifically his third and last long novel, Resurrection. *Spoiler Alert* In this novel Tolstoy’s alter-ego Neklyudov is a juror at a Trial and recognises the woman who years earlier, he, when she was his maid, had seduced (the cad!) and who was now leading a life of Prostitution, which he puts down to the seduction; so, like a good Russian he follows her to Siberia and proposes marriage. I forget the end; anyway, as far as I can see Tolstoy’s Novel’s just got worse and worse as his previous one, Anna Karenin, is an apology for cougar-like promiscuity, I’d say.
I hope this post is not too flippant, but I must say, that over here, most women would regard the idea that marriage should be the result of sex on a first date as laughable. One’s reputation as a man would be seriously impaired and the woman would see it as ‘creepy’.
It would seem to me that if they are not following the teachings of Christ and the New Testament, they are Christian women in name only. “By their deeds shall ye know them”.
‘Don’t judge me!’ It isn’t my judgement you should be worried about, cupcake, but I’m going to judge you anyways.
tweell beat me to the punch… If that’s the way Bob’s women acting, I’d say they’re Christian In Name Only. I know the type – my wife has girlfriends who are always posting bible verses on their facebook wall, talk about meeting the right guy in God’s time, etc. Yet they’ll slut it up with the cads and wonder where their Prince Charming is. CINO.
Perhaps it’s because I live in the buckle of the bible belt where traditional values and waiting for marriage aren’t *completely* foreign concepts (yet) and calling oneself a “Christian” requires more than going to church a few times a year, but I didn’t encounter that sort of “sex me up or we’re through” vibe that Bob describes with most (though not all) of the women I dated. I know it’s anathema to say this in the manosphere, but there are some good girls still out there. You just have to look *really* hard.
“Haha, it’s all a bit tiring, isn’t it?”
Its difficult to underestimate the effect that many more years of increasingly shill MAN UP! will have on mens psyche . In the end I think that there is a serious risk that men collectively will not give a F*CK about womens concerns. I’m nearly there myself.
I’m sure there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this. After all, girls who don’t put out right away are at a disadvantage in today’s SMP, especially with all us piggish menfolk around only looking to get some tail. Christian women are facing the double bind of needing to sin to get a decent hookup – er, husband – or needing to sacrifice passion and spontaneity in order to follow a plan. Can’t expect one of them to have the moral courage to do the right thing in the face of such adversity.
That’s part of why I practice my faith privately and eschew organized religion. I’m all for double standards in some things, but the requirement for some modicum of moral courage in the face of minor-to-moderate consequences seems like it ought to apply to women just as much as men. I suppose one could try to frame it as “taking the lead” when one refuses sex with a Christian girl (one would hopefully sound more dominant and, dare I say it, experienced than the actor above), then try to use the resulting Roissy-esque mindscrew of having turned her down as leverage to keep her interested… but that still leaves the problem of a supposedly Christian woman having wanted sex early on, and depending on your alpha-ness for her virtue. I don’t see a high success rate on that reframe even if the goal is worth it.
The sermon was pretty fun to watch, though. Heaping helping of the shame in the general direction of what he dislikes, “spray and pray”-style. Conflating physical abuse with reluctance to marry, with not having a job in today’s economy, and simply assuming that the women are passively going along with it and have no obligation to take care of themselves and their own spiritual health… plus, demanding that men submit and apologize to women on his orders and pain of divine retribution isn’t going to help a man maintain the dominant frame.
My local church had Driscoll speak about 8 months ago. He’s a compelling speaker, and the women in the audience were all shaking their heads in agreement. I stayed silent and sure enough in the car on the way home Mrs asks…”so, what did you think”.
I said, he’s a very dynamic speaker, and who would argue that two virgins meet and marry and stay together for life as an ideal.
Then I made the point I’ve made here on Dalrock before…Women are the gatekeepers of morality. If she ain’t giving, he ain’t getting…PERIOD!
To blame men for woman’s sluttiness is absurd. Women get they men they have signaled that they desire. The signal is woman’s easy availability without commitment…to certain types of men.
The only place where I say “man up” is for men to quit thinking with their nether regions and begin to live by “no rings for sluts!”
For every tramp/ born again virgin/ slut…there is some idiot guy who is willing to ignore the obvious and try to make shit into shinola.
God, that video was so saccharine my teeth hurt. I fail to see any CS Lewis in it, whatsoever.
Christians badly need to work on their image; how did shrivelled manginas like Mr Purity Bear, and lunatics screaming from a Southern pulpit become your spokepeople?
I would have one response for Mark. These women are not Christian therefore I have zero obligation to marry them. I would go further and say Mark is not Christian himself, merely a con artist but I think many would probably realise that already.
The whole Christian ministry is a joke, with shame artists like Mark coining it. It’s all for the money whilst turning Christianity into a scam. Follow these people at your own peril.
We have the same kind of ‘ministry’ type people over here in South Africa. Perhaps Dalrock can do a piece on Ray McCauley. That would be fun to read!
Mark Driscoll. God, what a bullying, thuggish jerk. Of all people, to accuse men of being less than Christian…..Notice how he cynically passed round the plate after the screaming outburst? Get the cash in quick whilst the women are still thrilling to the abuse and the (few) men haven’t had a chance to escape.
What a vicious, abusive narcissist. Glowing in the Alpha adoration of the women in the congregation while he beats the crap out of the beta chumps who can’t defend themselves. Why would any man stay in the same church as that vile coward?
Pirran, sometimes the only thing for a good Christian to do, is to walk out of that Church and never look back. Being a Christian means having the courage to do what’s right; and that means being able to determine what is healthy for yourself and your family. That Mark Discroll turd is unhealthy to any free thinking male. My advise to those ‘few men’ would be to walk out. Make a statement and be heard, but don’t just sit there and take it. That’s the worst thing you can do.
I don’t respond well to ‘screamers’ like Driscoll. I don’t mind it from the girlies though.
Furthermore, anyone with a dumb-ass faux-hawk who wants to call me a “little boy” loses all credibility no matter what he has to say.
The idea that Christian boys want to marry sluts is good in the sense that they will likely have active sex lives with those girls. The bad news is their ransacked vaginas and lack of ability to pair-bond and high levels of risk for cheating.
As for the guy who wrote in, he has a legit problem. It has become a situation where if a man wishes to be principled and dictate that there won’t be sex until marriage because that is how he wants to conduct himself, he won’t be respected for this noble stance, he will be ridiculed and disrespected as a beta schlub named Herb who will be lucky to get the friend zone at best.
My solution is to reject marriage outright and stop agonizing over the sexual relationships. The “marriage” that Paul endorses in the New Testament were Patriarchal marriages. The marriage available today is a sick, powerless, emasculating hoax specifically designed to destroy men (and therefore society). When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty. I have no choice but to rebel against the unjust feminist marriage structure.
The choices that we have, as far as choosing a wife, aint exactly what it used to be either. “A virtuous woman, who can find her?” No one, that’s who. Play the hand you’re dealt, boys, instead of pretending its something other than what you damn well know it is.
umslopogaas in the US someone with a very hard, uncompromising, sharp-tongued look about them is sometimes referred to as having a “hatchet face” or being “hatchet-faced”. That woman writer Silke is an example. Can’t imagine why she’d have any problem convincing men to commit to her…who wouldn’t want to awaken to that face & expression, eh?
Thanks for the linkage. This subject is getting nauseating. Feminized Christianity wants to appeal to chivalry to hold men accountable for women’s choices. No man can “dishonor” a woman who isn’t willing. These guys are in fact hardcore chauvinists, thinking that women can’t think for themselves and are easily duped, but at the same time that women are the “moral sex.” Fortunately for him, there are women like Paige who will still blame the big bad man for “assuming more self-awareness than the woman has” (direct quote from Miss Morticia).
Driscoll is just Hugo Schwyzer with a pulpit, a guilt-ridden self-flagellating alpha male who’s had the world at his fingertips and thinks all the other guys must have had that too.
“Pirran, sometimes the only thing for a good Christian to do, is to walk out of that Church and never look back.”
I remember something about if you hand causes you to sin, cut it off. If the people of God can’t honor him properly in their church you have no obligation to spend your time there.
I want an honorable man for my daughter, who right now is enmeshed in this crazy Christian SMP. I have, I hope, taught her well. She is no slut, neither is she a pushover. I hope I have taught her to notice men the other girls overlook.
She isn’t complaining about the slutty girls ruining the commitment-minded young men. Her complaints are more along the lines of dipshit Christian boys flirting with her then pulling out the “girlfriend” card when she responds. Her response so far has been to date around, accept invitations from these guys, ignoring their “girlfriends”. She says that pisses the girls off (she is attending a ‘Christian college’), but I think it’s a fairly good strategy.
I taught her ‘old school’. There are a series of stages a relationship between a man and a woman is supposed to pass through. The man is responsible for escalating. You get to choose from among the men who express interest in you, not from among those who don’t.
@Mule Chewing Briars
I’m curious what you meant by this. Is the point that these men and their girlfriends are assuming they have commitment where none actually exists, and therefore she is dealing with the (uncommitted) reality on the ground while seeking out true commitment (marriage)?
Great point.
“Christians badly need to work on their image; how did shrivelled manginas like Mr Purity Bear, and lunatics screaming from a Southern pulpit become your spokepeople?”
Aurini. Rocks.
Being a Christian doesn’t mean you are sinless. It means you do your utmost to avoid sin. Doing that is a day-to-day fight and if you aren’t struggling with it then you probably don’t have a very well-formed conscience or a very good understanding of the rules. If you have a rule that “no sex until the 5th date” then you have a conscious plan to commit a serious sin. It’s not murder, for sure; it’s one of the more understandable sins; but it’s sin nonetheless. I’ve been a manwhore; I reformed when I married my wife, and have been good since. We returned to the Church not long before we had our first child, and we’ve remained, working hard to live the Gospel – alas with many failings along the way. It’s an ongoing fight.
I’m not sure that I’d have been cool even in my manwhore days of dating an ostensible believer, who then expects sex after the 3rd / 5th / 7th date. I had other problems that drove me out of the church for a while (“liberation theology” ring a bell?) but at the time I thought it’d be the height of hypocrisy to pretend I was religious when the top priority in my life was getting laid. I have a bit of a problem with a lot of the prosperity gospel evangelicalism for this reason. Much of it seems to be about following trivial rules relating to appearances (no drinkin’, no dancin’, play nice and tithe) while openly flouting some of the big ones – the recent discussion of divorce and the laxity on premarital sex, loudly condemning it in one voice and tolerating it with no repercussions are examples.
I’m lucky to attend a Catholic parish in a diocese that is orthodox in the sense of following Church teachings. It is a major, years-long hassle to get an anullment and it’s not guaranteed; the divorced are reminded every so often that if they choose to remarry absent anullment, they cannot receive communion, and there are periodic reminders (albeit discreetly phrased) that cohabitation and related activities are in fact mortal sins in the eyes of the Church and require confession, a sincere effort to stop committing the sin, and avoiding communion until in a state of grace. These are just logical implications of the doctrine of transubstantiation, but that doctrine and its implications seem to give the priests and our bishop the backbone and moral conviction to give unrepentant sinners in the flock the hairy eyeball. Do we still have open and unrepentant sinners? Yep. We still have people who are screwed up, near hopeless sinners – I reckon I have a lifetime enlistment in that particular army. But there’s an effort to do something about it, and less hypocrisy. Not every parish or diocese is as good, the modern rot has set in and infected many of them.
So how should a Christian woman respond to a man with loose morals? Marry him if he makes the case (actions over time, affirmances) that demonstrate he is going to be better than that. I really don’t have the answer in the other direction besides that; I don’t know the magical number where a basically good woman has put herself into the untouchable category. Given the complications for women – the chemical bonding, greater disease & infertility risk, women must have a lower number biologically than men, but I don’t think it is realistic to expect 0. Were I say 30 and looking to get married today, I’d be interested in a girl with a low partner count but wouldn’t have a magic number, would be more interested in pattern of behavior toward the opposite sex over a long period of time. I would avoid the carousel riders as a bad gamble on somebody who will have had some bad biological changes wrought by all that sexual activity, and who has a character that doesn’t lend itself to commitment. I couldn’t possibly expect perfection though, knowing where I had been and also knowing that nobody is perfect and to expect a human to be perfect is to set yourself up for failure. Marrying a woman who has had a few partners isn’t a big deal. Marrying a slut – like a woman marrying a long time dedicated PUA – is just asking for trouble.
I believe my daughter is calling these dipshits out. They flirt with her. She responds, and escalates. Then they get all nervous and start talking about their “girlfriends”.
Then they ask her out. She doesn’t even bother bringing up the “girlfriends”, but makes it clear that her acceptance of the invitation does not include any subsurface mineral rights. The girls get pissed off because she isn’t playing by the official rules, i.e. there are Girlfriend-girls and Fool-Around-girls. The other girls seem to be quite happy being Fool-Around girls hoping to move into the “Girlfriend” slot. My daughter is not about to become a Fool-Around girl, and her stated expectation to move directly into the Girlfriend slot is threatening the delicate balance.
She already knows that any boy who will promote her directly into the Girlfriend slot is likely to be the kind who can’t pull a lot of Fool-Around girls, i.e. less attractive. She is still negotiating this internally, but the recent crop of young men she has brought home for review aren’t at all objectionable.
I have to warn her about Dinner-and-Movie-whoring, though. She has a tendency in that direction.
Your daughter is being clever for her age. As I have always said to any women I have this conversation with. There are two categories of women. One that men will use for casual dates and sex but will not put a ring on her finger, even if the Lord came down and shocked them with lightning bolts; and then there is the girl who they would want to marry. The one that carries herself with dignity, who is responsible in her lifestyle and her life choices, faithful and respectful towards men, her father most especially, and has an extremely low partner count, preferably zero.
Needless to say, these women don’t get it or simply don’t want to get it and fall into the same trap over and over again.
How can I take this driscoll guy’s opinion on masculinity serious when he doesn’t have trigger time in a Ranger Batt? Or an elite total in power-lifting?
see what I did there? I picked a couple of things I’m good at, but are only portions of mature masculinity and made it the pinnacle of masculinity. Pretty ridiculous isn’t it
I’d like to see a pastor get that fired up about women who abuse/ neglect men
@FemH8r
The disturbing thing (to me) is that the young men my daughter’s age appear to have stopped making that distinction. All of the Official Girlfriends ™ are former Fool-Around girls, and the progression from Fool-Around girl to Official Girlfriend appears natural to the other girls. This is why my daughter’s behavior is so alien to them.
“Seems like a bad idea but anything beats sinning or being lonely and needy.”
wow this guy is a loser no matter what he tries, it’s almost like trying to get married just based on your religious beliefs is retarded……… nah that can’t be it
(the correct choice is just not to get married, not that he would learn that lesson until after being burned *so bad* he will end up hating women entirely)
How dare you, Mark Driscoll, finger-wag at men for their sins while ignoring the sins of the women!
“There are two categories of women. One that men will use for casual dates and sex but will not put a ring on her finger, even if the Lord came down and shocked them with lightning bolts; and then there is the girl who they would want to marry. ”
Bingo. I ‘dated’ a lot of loose women. Some relatives asked one time in my mid-20′s if I was gay because I never talked about the girls I was dating and never brought them home. I was pretty blunt – “I’m having fun, but I’m not going to bring strippers, loose women and flings home to meet my momma. They aren’t marriage material.” When guys are ready to get serious about finding a mate, they’ll treasure a woman who does not give in cheaply. Until then… well, their attention isn’t worth much. She is likely to find a good man sooner than if she tries to follow the harem-to-primary-girlfriend path.
I laughed my way through that screecher video. Comedy gold. He should co-host with Colbert.
Although you have to wonder what kind of mincing nancy boy would sit through all that. Does this guy only have middle-aged divorcée hags desperately hoping the sect leader will bless them with his Holy Appendage today in his cult outfit?
Honestly Mule, I think those boys have made the distinction, if only in the back of their minds. Those boys are happy for those girls to be their girlfriends at this point in time. It’s free sex after all. They will dump those girls in a heart beat when they seriously start looking at their options with respect to marriage. Although, at their age, they aren’t even thinking that far ahead. Right now, they just getting it (sex) without having to put much effort in at all. Something about milking cows I believe?
With respect to your daughter, I think she’s making the better decisions that will help her later in her life. Right now, to your daughter, it must seem awfully weird how the boys react to her, which could potentially cause her to question traditional wisdom. I think that’s where you come in, you have to guide her through the process, you have to be able to teach her the abstracts of short-term consequences vs long-term consequences.
Although, if what you say is true, she at least seems to have a better head on her shoulders, compared to most of the other girls her age. And that alone should do wonders.
Good luck!
The cliches are appropriate here:
Never buy something you can get for free.
Never pay new car prices for one that is used.
The churchs are Apostate, the fast way to damnation is going to them and heeding their false messages.
Mule Chewing Briars
You get to choose from among the men who express interest in you, not from among those who don’t.
One of the most important things that a young woman can learn, because proper understanding of this will keep her from becoming a carousel watcher. Furthermore, if she doesn’t like any of the men who are expressing interest in her, then that means she needs to change something about herself, and not necessarily in some cosmetic, surface way either.
I would have one response for Mark. These women are not Christian therefore I have zero obligation to marry them. I would go further and say Mark is not Christian himself, merely a con artist but I think many would probably realise that already.
I agree. Somebody here will probably say that I’m using the “no trues Scotsman” fallacy but, unfortunately here, it’s extremely applicable. On a number of occasions I don’t believe that Dalrock understands how filthy and heretical many sections of modern “Christianity” are. He doesn’t fully comprehend their predictement. He hasn’t seen the number of Christians that don’t even believe in God (yes, skeptical and agnostic pastors and sheep exist). Many Christians haven’t even read their Bibles at all. Some Christians buy PC Bible translations where things like adultery, homosexuality and whatnot are pulled out of the Bible because it’s offensive, bigoted, delusional and sexist to the itching ears of modernity. Others act like New Agers with their “hate religion but love Jesus” teachings. There are so many things at work in today’s Christianity that for one to catch a glimpse of the macro view one would have to go to Christian websites dealing with theological issues, philosophical issues, apologetics and other things.
If anybody is curious here’s one snapshot of the face of modern “Christianity” folks -> http://www.alittleleaven.com/
There was one thing I believe that Dalrock got on target in this post. He questioned the wisdom of modern Christian leaders. He was quite correct and on track to do so.
I’d like to see a pastor get that fired up about women who abuse/ neglect men
That’s probably not going to happen. You will see them fired up at the poisonous health, wealth and prosperity message though.
“Christians badly need to work on their image; how did shrivelled manginas like Mr Purity Bear, and lunatics screaming from a Southern pulpit become your spokepeople?”
Because in the modern US church, women:
1. Are the driving financial force. Women decide what churches/ministries get the money and how much. If they get angry or offended, they are the ones who decide to withhold the tithes and gifts.
2. Do the vast majority of volunteering, without which a church could not function.
3. Are the ones who decide where the family attends church and the level of commitment that will be given.
Whenever a gaggle of church ladies get offended/pissed off by something a pastor or someone else in the church said or did, the women immediately rise up with furious force against the object of their ire. They hold meetings to complain. They start letter writing campaigns to the object’s superiors. They quit their volunteer positions and recruit others to do the same. The gift checks stop coming. They threaten the pastor that they will take their attendance (and by implication their volunteer efforts and their money) elsewhere. All this is done to pressure pastors and their superiors to toe the feminist line. That means:
1. Don’t you dare preach about how wives are to respect their husbands.
2. Don’t you dare do or say anything to make a divorced woman feel the least bit of discomfort.
3. You may not preach or talk about the following subjects: divorce as a sin, extramarital sex as a sin, a wife’s submissive role in marriage as described in scripture, a husband’s proper dominant role as leader of his family.
It was quite difficult following Mark’s talk with all of the scripture references. I hate it when pastors base their teaching on the Bible.
To reach the masses he needs to stop relying upon the Bible, logic, and good reasoning. Instead he needs to throw a tantrum, start yelling and pointing his fingers, and try to play on peoples emotions. At the end he should close by discussing what his top priority is and pass around the offering plate.
[/sarcasm]
I think the whole context is messed up. The man asking the question at the beginning of the post complains about slutty women, yet he has no problem taking what he can get. It’s as if he is evading responsibility. He just has no choice but to screw the gals, since they offer it to him. He just gets “caught up”. Yet he is supposed to be a Christian, and wants a Christian wife. How is his behavior supposed to help? I would submit that he isn’t, and he doesn’t really want one. He’s one of the guys that is making decisions in the middle, not the margin. And nothing will change.
And the videos almost made me want to throw up. I can see, as misguided as it is, what the purity bear video is trying to say. It’s trying to address a modern situation and say that marriage is where the action should take place. The way it’s done is ridiculous, obviously. The Mark Driscoll video is disgusting, and willfully ignorant. My sympathies are with Dalrock for wading through what must have been many videos till he found this gem, and then watched the entire thing. Driscoll speaks as if the gals are handcuffed to the men they have chosen and have no responsibility in the matter. Thank God I don’t have to listen to this drivel at my church.
“Feminized Christianity wants to appeal to chivalry to hold men accountable for women’s choices.”
And also, to relieve women from the adverse consequences of their own choices.
Dude is looking at it all wrong by playing into her frame. Reframe as the MAN who is controlling the tempo, as in “I dont really know if I like you enough to kiss you, much less slap the fat”. I find it very empowering to poopoo her efforts to get physical. We play it my way which is no horizontal rodeos till I hear wedding bells. Because of the lack of physical intimacy, it makes it very easy to spread the wealth by dating more than one at a time. For her to enter a marriage knowing that her man will not be swimming in any strange honeypot because he showed her his restraint beforehand, is powerful mojo.
I can’t believe that the Purity Bear video is not a parody. Is it really serious? I actually laughed while watching it. And as for Driscoll, oh my goodness. I couldn’t get past about 1:50 on the video and it took me two attempts to get that far. Has he read his Bible? Did he notice the proverbs? I’ve found eight separate warnings about adulterous women. They occupy a significant portion of the book of proverbs; it’s a main theme (Proverbs chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 22, 23, 30). And that is besides the multiple cautions about wives who make their husbands’ lives miserable from nagging and the like. (E.g., Prov. 27:15-16A quarrelsome wife is like the dripping of a leaky roof in a rainstorm; restraining her is like restraining the wind or grasping oil with the hand).
In case anyone is not super-familiar with the Bible’s book of proverbs, I’ll tell you how many warnings there are about adulterous or whiny husbands: none.
Obviously, if women are cheating then most of the time they’re cheating with men. So it’s not like men are blameless. However, there has to be a reason why the Bible repeatedly warns men about women, but not the other way around. I think there are a couple of reasons for it, but it’s a bigger topic than I can cover in a blog reply. However, the warnings themselves are interesting. They all tell men to stay well away from adulterous women. Don’t go near their houses, don’t chat with them, etc. They are trouble, always. I think the avoidance is for a few reasons, one of which is that once you are in close proximity to a woman and things heat up, it’s too late to make decisions. Your body is overloaded with the need to reproduce. The time to decide to do the right thing is before you have to decide anything.
The New Testament has similar avoidance advice, though it applies to anyone who is in a state of unrepentant sin. 1 Cor. 5:11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. The directive in this context was to throw them out of the church until they had clearly repented. I don’t know of any big church that does this anymore. But the fact is, according to the Bible, no church should have people in it who are living in sexual sin. They should be kicked out until they repent. Ranting from the pulpit to guys to MANUP(TM) is cowardly.
The NT says that to avoid fornication (sex with neither person already married), you should get married. One thing I can’t remember finding in the Bible is the woman deciding to marry the man. I may just be not sufficiently familiar with it to find an instance of such a thing, but as far as I see, if a guy wants a girl, he takes her as his wife. The woman has basically no say in it. Obviously, that is a weird thing to consider these days, but perhaps it would avoid a whole lot of problems.
Wait. Purity Bear was serious? I thought that was parody. Really bad parody.
I have a nephew who is 27, good looking, athletic, great job, by every measure a “good catch”.
He dates some fine women too, very attractive…physically.
A year ago he decided he wanted to settle down, so he is testing prospects. A first date nice romantic dinner out, a show, and escort her to her door…if she invites him to stay, they are immediately scratched from the “potential wife” list.
In a year all offer it up on the first date.
The new American woman, Tramps Inc!
@Badger
“Driscoll is just Hugo Schwyzer with a pulpit, a guilt-ridden self-flagellating alpha male who’s had the world at his fingertips and thinks all the other guys must have had that too.”
@Feminist Hater
“I would go further and say Mark is not Christian himself, merely a con artist”
I doubt there’s too much self-flagellating from a bullying thug like Driscoll (or Schwyzer). I think Feminist Hater hits the nail. He’s undoubtedly out of the same cynical scheming-scumbag mold as Schwyzer, with congregational women as his groupies and beta schlubs as the punching bag. Like Schwyzer, the humility is strictly for show. Guilt-ridden would imply at least some doubt in chucking guys under the bus and I see no evidence of that. Men are merely the means to provide the financial support to the groupies (and thereby him) and a convenient hate vehicle for the women as a whole.
I think it’s hard to over-estimate the ruthless self-interest and mercenary calculation of a pastor like Driscoll (or so many others). The Devil is just so passé; why not focus the hate on physical objects like men? It keeps the coffers over-flowing and thrills the single moms. Win-win.
http://www.sojo.net/blogs/2012/01/22/he-said-she-said-driscolls-real-marriage-really-not/
This was interesting. It kind of confirmed my initial assessment of Driscoll as a guy who played by a set of Rules in his formative years and could never live down the feeling that he was missing out on other aspects of life. His overarching preoccupation with sexualized, secular culture is the strongest indictment of this.
This was an excellent comment from my post on Driscoll last week. I had pointed out evangelical men’s new fascination with MMA fighting and the push to make it “Christian Kosher”:
According to what Relevant says to the 20-somethings, (myself being one) http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life/relationship/features/27856-qbut-he-or-she-isnt-a-virginq
Judging people by their sexual past could be a matter of one’s own pride issue. Keeping either partner in the dark about your sexual past is like hiding a bomb in a closet of your house waiting to blow up when someone decides to peek inside, be it weeks or years down the road.
I agree that you should extend grace to people who are fallen and messed up creatures. As human beings. Not as potential spouses. Just like a wouldn’t trust a crack addict around crack, a slut with a lot of male “friends” is a huge red flag. As a handsome guy over 6′ with a good job, I won’t put up with it. My last girlfriend threw a hissy fit when I asked her to drop an ex off of Facebook. (He had been texting her, I think it was a sh*t test.) Gave her a week to decide, then dumped her. Can’t be too careful, when people blame Facebook for 1 in 4 divorces. At 24, I’ve seen the marriage/divorce carnage and decided I’d rather be alone than with someone who has proven themselves untrustworthy in past sexual conduct.
Lol oh man, you gave me a good laugh Dalrock with that driscoll video. driscoll is living in 1950′s fantasy land.
All I can say about Driscoll and the Bear is, “Holy sh*t”…
gdgm+
I cannot help but notice the sign on the door in the Purity Bear Video. Rather undercuts the intended message, I’d say.
I’m really glad I’m now buddhist.
To be honest, I don’t know the answer to Bob’s situation. Other than, break up with the girl when it gets to this point (or when you get the first sense that something might be up, that she may be a slut) and look for the next one.
I’m thinking, too, that just as women should look for the men that other women overlook, likewise men should look for the women that are often overlooked.
I’m often described as “cold and “aloof.” Look for that girl, she’s guarding herself carefully from being treated poorly by sluts and man-whores/cads alike.
I’m also glad I’m married and believe in marriage.
Opus says:
January 23, 2012 at 4:36 pm
“I cannot help but notice the sign on the door in the Purity Bear Video. Rather undercuts the intended message, I’d say.”
Well….any port in a storm. I can’t help thinking that another bear beginning with P will be substituted in any You-tube mashups.
I need to go back a bit to when I had just become a Christian and had broken up with my long term gf. I went to a local church and made friends with several people there, including a divorcee who had split from her husband when she came home early from work as a result of a power failure and found him in bed with her former ‘best friend’. she claimed to be a Christian and knew all the correct answers to the questions, but made it clear that she knew she was good in bed and was not waiting until her divorce was final before getting sexual. I took the advice of Scripture and fled immorality. My wife, who is also Christian, made it clear that she was not prepared to get sexual before marriage and I have no regrets about marrying her.
People have missed a point that Mark Driscoll has made in some of his other sermons, and that is that the world is divided into two categories. They are forgiven sinners and unforgiven sinners. My point is that if someone is a Christian, then they need to follow the commands of Scripture and flee immorality. They need to take the power that the Holy Spirit gives them to change their lifestyles and live life according to The Bible. It is not easy, as I can testify, but it is possible. It was in undergraduate psychology I was first faced with the question “So what?”. The tutor was saying that if the papers we had read did not make any difference in the real world, they were a waste of time. It is exactly the same with Christianity. If it makes no difference to the way you lead your life, it is not authentic Christianity. It is a facade, or a sham. Even a con job. But it is not Christianity.
“I just have to say, as a Christian man, I find it near impossible not to have sex with Christian women by like the 5 date. This is because they seem to expect it and reject you if you don’t make a move. I don’t get it. ”
I know I am not the first to note this, but where exactly are these “christian” women he is dating and perhaps he is fishing in the wrong pond?
And also, if he is seriously seeking a wife not to point out the obvious, but if they are only going to stay with him if he is willing to fornicate with them prior to marriage then perhaps that is a sign that he should move on and not pursue it any further, and oddly also, if this has repeatedly proven to be a problem (although to be honest I question that he seems to think it is a problem as he does go along with it it seems) then why isn’t he having a conversation about this before date number 1? I’ll admit I have only seriously courted one woman in my life and am married to her now so perhaps the nuances of dating escape me, but still, this seems like a prudent conversation before date #1 or at least before date #2 at any rate.
“Seems like a bad idea but anything beats sinning or being lonely and needy.”
I know I will probably get taken to task for saying this but may I suggest he actually do “man up” (although not by marrying these walking train wrecks). Not having sex wont kill you, exercise some self control. You will certainly need to exercise self control if you actually meet an appropriately chaste woman that you claim to be looking for so why not start now? This last line makes it sound like you are making excuses for what you want to do.
I’m not saying it is easy, but God never promises an easy life if you follow him just a life in line with the way it is meant to be lived. You’ve already made lots of poor decisions and so will have to suffer the consequences for this behavior but that doesn’t mean you are doomed.
Jason
“Christian” SMP only means they pump and dump other Christians. Driscoll’s a bit behind the times… needs the change the Ed Grimley haircut, too. And when a Christian woman says “I’m not haaappy” she still means ““I want to give the house, half your income and our kids to a lowlife who’ll screw me silly in our bed then whore me out to his drinking buddies for fun until I’m unwanted and alone so I can feel fulfilled.”
“I’m also glad I’m married and believe in marriage.”
Just a question, were you a virgin before you said your vows?
If you were, good for you.
Driscoll seems to be in need a of Anger Management counselling.
That’s a shorter version of the purity bear video then I once saw. In the other one, the best man came up and stood beside the groom. When the groom faced forward, the bride and best man winked at each other.
I guess the original message of no rings for sluts wasn’t well recieved.
(/jk)
Hey Dalrock has this Mark guy seen any of your articles on him? I wonder if he would be a good candidate to learn game and then game his female flock of sluts to keep themselves in check. to make themselves presentable to christian men. His first sermon would be for an answer to this question How should christian men respond to slutty women? His answer should be “fuck the hell out of them in every opening they have as many times as you like. And for gods sake pull out of her pussy and shoot your load on her back or on her sheets because you don’t want to be stuck paying child support to slut cum bucket.” he should use the that language and be as blunt as possible. No slut in a church should ever be made to feel comfortable as a slut in a church. And to add to that no proud christian man should ever be portrayed as a clean chump for a slut. The church should always portray a solid christian man as a prize a woman should strive to deserve. It kills two birds with one stone it will require christian men to be masculine which will add to the desirability for a woman and will enhanse the submission to male leadership meme.
The problem with slutty women is not so much their past as much as it is their future. Being far from perfect, forgiveness and redemption are important to me. But when you consider that whatever relationship you have is built on a legal foundation of sand, it becomes risky to the point of foolishness to marry, particularly to a woman who has had a high partner count. Forgiveness is one thing but stupidity is another.
Many of these youngish new-age pastors remind me of a saying my parents had from days of yore:
She (he) is worse than a reformed whore in church.
perhaps he is fishing in the wrong pond
Forgiveness is one thing but stupidity is another
These. Continuing to interact with these women is bad for Christian business. A), They don’t appear to be wife material, hardly repentant, so why waste the effort, and B) dabbling in occasion to his own sin and theirs doesn’t seem to be charitable or prudent on Bob’s part. Sounds like trouble. Pregnant-by-another-man-whose-number-she-can’t-remember trouble so she called you instead. Run. away.
And Driscoll? Seriously? We should pray for the good behavior of women in our culture, but we’re not going to marry them out of their willful condition.
Sunday Morning Nightclub!! Yeah!!
That truly is the natural progression of what churches have become. A PUA who is operating in a church is merely accelerating the necessary demise of the sordid institution.
@Dalrock
Apologies the Dalrock crowd, for interrupting your regular bashing of christian sluts ….
Talking of sluts ….
Check out this must see link …. check out the even more hilarious comments …
Woman-barred-from-every-club-in-town-over-sexy-clobber ….
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4079489/Woman-barred-from-every-club-in-town-over-sexy-clobber.html
lol omg the comments ….
“I’d have to wear a paper bag over my head……in case hers fell off!”
“classic comment “Body off baywatch, face off Crimewatch” hahahahah”
“My eyes are burning!”
“Damn she is a real looker..Hang on, where are my glasses to get a better look.aaarrrghhhh!”
“Everyone do this.
Scroll up the page slowly…nice….nice…sexy…..arghhhhhhhhhhhhhh what on earth is that.
Now do 3 times with the same result for each picture.”
“mouth like a tortoise, i keep shoving bits of lettuce at my screen.” …..
“with a brown paper bag on….I’d give it a go!”
I think we now have a new class of slut, the stretch mark slut, 10x times sluttier then a regular slut & 10x times fuglier … how do you spot a stretch mark slut? … her stretch marks & crack whore like ass ….
The crack whore stretch mark slut, living proof of the low standards of membership feminism requires … & creates in lower class Britain, wont be long before the majority of sluts in britain start sport this fetching but distinctive new look!
The crack whore stretch mark slut, coming soon to a Tesco near you …. in glorious stretch mark stereoscopic 3d vision …
Watch out for stampedes in the discount diaper & dry vaginal lube section ….
This slut is LIVING proof there is no reform for sluts … not after this sort of ramming by half of the local yob population of white trash in all of freaking britain …
She got her stretch marked ass banned from a club called Tramps … says it all ….
Hi Dalrock, off topic comment but I thought of your blog posts on Fire-proof and women conflating porn with adultery this morning listening to Glenn Beck’s radio show. Discussing Newt, a caller chastised Beck for talking about Newt’s affairs when he himself had been adulterous before. Glenn says: “That’s news to me.”
The (female, of course) caller explains that his alcoholism was an affair.
Wow. Is there anything a man can do that won’t be tucked away as potential justification for divorce?
@ Nautilus
With all due respect, you are far too generous.
@TFH
It is a PUA canned hunt and the church is doing nothing about it. It is just staight up lieing to women that need the truth. For a good christian man to throw his life away on one of these women is feeding the beast. It is pure madness on the part of the church.
LOVE the Mark Driscoll video. In fact, I support him 100% and may even send him a check. That man is thinning the herd, and every beta he shames back into “the fold” by claiming the Alpha anger his rhetoric provokes is really the “Holy Spirit” landing a bitchslap of conviction yields more breathing room for me.
More power to him.
As for Bob the commenter, there is not one verse in the bible that condemns premarital sex. Not one. Even the famous Deuteronomy 22:21 which seems to be the go-to verse to suggest premarital sex is a sin is used out of context. Read the whole chapter, and it is immediately evident that the problem is not virginity or lack thereof; the problem was the fact that money was paid for virginity and virginity was not given in return. This chapter is not about the sin of promiscuity, it is about the sin of lying, deception and the resulting shame it brings upon a household. A virgin bride was just an example, because back then, a young woman’s ability to bring a dowry to her father by offering a man a virgin womb so he could be certain his first born son was really his was the only way a woman could bring honor to her family and her future husband.
While you’re reading the “she’s not a virgin so give me back my money and stone this bitch for lying” story, run your finger up to verse 11 of that same chapter, and remember that any minister who preaches that you should not to bang before marriage while he’s wearing a wool-viscose blended suit is a hypocrite and in violation of the same archaic set of laws in the same chapter of the same book he’s using against you.
Bob, my brother, it is not illogical to surmise from the bible that purity is the responsibility of the woman, and that responsibility is only placed upon her when resources are being exchanged for her purity. Today, men do not exchange resources before the wedding – we do it after. That’s why, biblically speaking, we have no right to ask a woman to wait for us before the wedding. Only after, when resources are exchanged, do we have the moral authority to demand she reserves her womb for us.
There are a host of social and psychological reasons why promiscuity is harmful to women, but Bob’s question was not predicated on those factors. So if the Good Book is Bob’s only standard, then he’s free to bang away. Biblically speaking, if a woman is not lying to you about her sexual past in order to get a ring and commitment (resources), she’s free to conduct herself in any sexual manner she chooses.
Bob would be well advised to still identify her as the slut she is, but not for any credible religious reasons.
Being in a group ‘lowers your intelligence – especially if you’re a woman’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2090588/Being-group-lowers-intelligence–especially-youre-woman.html
“”I came to the same conclusion years ago after observing a group of 6 women attempting to parallel park one car.” Men cause more accidents than women. “
And I thought Driscoll was supposed to be edgy and new, not preaching the same tripe as everybody else with more shaming language and less chapter-and-verse.
No such thing as an edgy christian … lol
The Gospel According to Dr. Phil…
Genesis 3:16 — …Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you… Slut bible – & he shalll bend you over …
1 Corinthians 11:3 — …the head of the woman is man… Slut bible & you shall give godlike head
1 Corinth. 14:34 — …women… must be in submission… Slut bible women… must be in missionary position
Ephesians 5:22 – Wives, submit to your husbands… Feminist version … Rape
Btw all you fence sitters, Driscoll is alot worse then Dalrock makes out …
ie This choice quote … “You men…God might even kill you right here to make an example of you.”
thx for the driscoll vid, v inspiring, i managed about one half
this guy isnt a white knight, he’s bleached
before jesus did any act in revelation, in chap 1 he warns (and sometimes commends) the “churches” that were purportedly serving him
he’s talking (thru patmos john) about our times, when most “churches,” and thus ministers/pastors, will be false — or seriously flawed (of spirit, not flesh)
driscoll’s a bit more hysteric than most of them, but unfortunately is representative of the bargain between the churches and women, similar to the bargain with the State
he reminds me of a cop or jail guard
mark, it’d be better that you and you family live in a cardboard box on sunset blvd that continue in your ways
some good comments along w the post, plenty of water for the horse, not your fault if he croaks athirst
@ Metu
The Bible refers to sex when neither party is married (premarital sex) as fornication.
From Galations 5: Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness. . . of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
From Colossians 3: But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints . . . For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
From 1 Corinthians 6: Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
Casual sex is always spoken against, in no uncertain terms.
If anyone cares, I’ve just had a rather extreme demonstration of how fast things can go bad.
So I’m going to be focusing on taking care of my leaving the country checklist for the indefinite future. That means no more committing on message boards. So goodbye for a while.
I suggest other people also begin making plans, or thinking about leaving the United States as well.
Things can go bad pretty fast.
Mark, crack open your Greek and Hebrew lexicon and look up fornication. Heterosexual activity is never condemned in the bible when talking about two single people. The most conservative scholars will agree with this assessment even when doing so causes them to squirm and nearly brings them to tears. The word fornication is used to describe idolatry (predicated on the notion that Christians are the bride of Christ), and adultery (predicated on the notion that women are the bride of man). Incest, homosexuality, etc. are called out as specific terms or loosely translated in modern bibles as “Sexual immorality/perversion.”
Idolatry and adultery is fornication. Cheating on God and cheating on your spouse is fornication. Christ made a sacrifice on the cross to claim his bride, and men paid a dowry for their bride. A Christian cheating on God with other gods and a woman cheating on her man with other men is fornication. It should also be noted that Paul kicks up his condemnation of fornication right about the time he was writing letters to newly formed churches in cities renown for serving many different gods.
Paul was only concerned with new Christians breaking vows; vows between Christ and his bride, and vows between brides and their husbands. The actions of single people (outside of incest, homosexuality, bestiality, etc.) were of little to no consequence.
Applying the pop definition of fornication to a 2,000+ year old text is not prudent research. Remember when the word gay meant happy?
Even if you disagree with literal Greek and Hebrew interpretations of your modern bible (as do many Christians because it makes things very inconvenient and uncomfortable) you would have to admit it’s odd that a major transgression such as premarital sex between two single people does not receive a thumbs up or thumbs down plainly and unmistakably when so many other seemingly lesser infractions are. Why would an omniscient omnipresent God leave an all-important subject capable of bringing eternal damnation and separation to such abstruse lexicographical exegetics?
He wouldn’t.
I’ll give you the last word on the subject, but for fuck sake, please resist the urge to copy and paste from the “true love waits” brochure your daughter leaves around the house to make you think she’s not getting split in half by that “totally dedicated and super-awesome” Christian boy she met at a Kutless concert last month.
Doyourownresearch:
good for both of us you mean — seeing as we were both young and inexperienced. I was 20 and he was 24 when we made our public pronouncement. we had a ceremony several years after. the first was legal, the second was ceremonial (for family and stuff).
I’m the guy who made that comment. As for the people claiming I’m not a Christian, well, I mostly do tell them no and lose the girl. I have messed up a few times, but it’s hard. Not bein married and not being able to have sex eats at you. Especially when you only have a few months a year to meet women and all your friends are getting tons of I&I during downtime and you can only hear about it (I’m active duty Army). I haven’t been a Christian that long, and my fiancé left me when I became one because she got pissed off that I started goin to church and talking about the Bible so much. So I thought Christian women would be down with doing the right thing and I was wrong. I met 1 decent Christian girl and she’s a Russian woman who is really into the Orthodox church. She seems quite moral and I feel no pressure to have sex with her. So i am considering joining the Orthodox church. If it doesn’t work out with her, I think I’ll look abroad, like the guy who mentioned Philipino brides said to do. One of my buds found a Philipino woman on the Internet and she’s awesome. She came here an married him right away. Russian women seem to be the best so far though, and they like us soldiers.
Also, to the commenter who auggested telling women youre waiting til marriage on the first date – you cannot tell a woman that. It will raise red flags, or more accurately, ultra beta flags, in her mind. People who recommend this have little to no experience interacting with the SMP.
Sorry for any writing issues with this post. Wrote it on my phone so it’s not too good.
I watched most of Driscoll’s video. I concur that it looks like he’s had his life a bit easier than most. Especially telling is the “get a job” comment smack dab in the middle of a recession. Sure. You can get a job and work hard, but that’s no guarantee your work will pay enough to support a family.
The men he is calling out to be cowards seem to be the ones who are abusive or controlling in their relationships. Granted, he’s also calling out men who are being stand-up guys and not taking nagging from women.
All in all, I think Dalrock has it right about Driscoll’s betaization tendency in his rants. I say that because Driscoll seems to draw his arguments a bit too broadly, leveling accusations at both appropriate and inappropriate targets.
I wanted to know more about Purity Bear; to find out its provenance. I didn’t get far, though I can tell that the people who made the video are surely well meaning, but I did come across something: Perhaps you recall the Atheist (with a capital A) woman ‘skepchick’ – the woman who freaked out because a man in an elevator was brazen enough to say how interesting he found her and how he would like to talk to her some more, over a coffee – well, she has weighed in! Is she a supporter of Purity Bear? No, of course not, she recomends contraceptives.
Given that, in a way, the Purity Bear video is essentially a re-run of her late-at-night elevator encounter, it should surprise me that she does not seem to see the irony, but it doesn’t. Perhaps the boy in Purity Bear should have blogged on the Net how creepy he found the idea that a woman should invite him in for coffee.
Of course in real life the boy would have instantly agreed to go in for coffee and jokes, but the video is either implying that the girl is a Jezebel or that women are incapable of saying no. Both views are of course complete nonsense.
Bob: Just a thought, if you are having that much “success” with chicks, whether desired or not, you might have the Alpha turned up too high. When I was in the navy, away from naval bases, just knowing I was in the services the sluts would swarm me. Just like how a girl dressing like a slut sends signals to the cads, you might be inadvertently signaling to the “Christian” sluts. Dial it back, or even set your sights on a more attractive woman (they can afford to be less slutty in the SMP) and you might have better luck.
An idea for a new bracelet that wimpy men can wear. The WWMDD bracelet. A perfect present to give your future husband, boyfriend, lover or ONS in order to get them to think the ‘correct thoughts’ that Mark Driscoll provides.
I met 1 decent Christian girl and she’s a Russian woman who is really into the Orthodox church. She seems quite moral and I feel no pressure to have sex with her. So i am considering joining the Orthodox church.
There are many secular Russians who (among the women) are just as bad as Westerners, but a devout Orthodox Christian woman is a good bet. The Orthodox Church is patriarchal in its nature and has not made the concessions to feminism that even the Catholics (the most patriarchal of the Western Christians) have done — likely because it is not subject to the same degree of pressure in that regard, but also due to its staunch traditionalism. Keep in mind, though, that Orthodoxy is intended to be “hardmode” Christianity. We’re focused on “orthopraxy” quite a bit, and are quite ascetical (even “lay” people .. the difference in fasting and asceticism between lay people and monks is one of degree, but all fast in ways that are usually shocking to Western Christians). Be careful, of course, but the Orthodox Church in the Orthodox World is not a bad place to go woman shopping — the usual caveats in mind, of course.
@ Metu
I’ve never read a True Love Waits brochure, or anything else remotely similar. Nor do I care for what Bible scholars have to say, for the most part. Half of them disagree with the other half, some of them don’t even believe in a literal God, and many of them make it their life’s work to make excuses for denying the power of God.
I do care what the Bible says. And I do have several lexicons, concordances, and despite what I said above, a few commentaries. I have my Strong’s on hand right now and it says that the New Testament Greek word for fornication means harlotry and comes from a root word meaning to indulge in unlawful lust or act like a whore. It is figuratively used to denounce idolatry, but is not literally idolatry. Idolatry is spiritual fornication; however, literal fornication is a physical, sexual act.
But even leaving aside for the moment the specific individual translations for the word fornication, the running theme throughout the Bible is that sex is designed for marriage. The Old Testament law stated that if two people had sex and they were not married they had to become married. It talks about the whole “one flesh” thing several times, the joining together of two individuals as one. If your first sexual act outside of wedlock results in a commandment to wed, then it doesn’t leave room for more sex outside of wedlock, does it? You can’t even engage in sex with others while betrothed, since that is punishable by death. So, sex before marriage results in marriage; sex while in a betrothal or marriage, with someone else, results in death.
@Hermit – I tried dialing back, but I didn’t feel like it was the best idea. It felt very unnatural and getting dates is hard enough (sure I manage more than most men, but it’s not easy by any means). Additionally, if she’s going to act slutty around someone more alpha, I want to know that off the bat – whoever marries me will spend a lot of time around alpha men due to the nature of my job, and I plan on staying here until they boot me of old age. I do try to infuse a lot of beta provider game – I pay for nearly everything all the time (I can afford it though, I really have nothing to spend my money on). I have a set point where I stop escalating – I make out with her then stop and say that I don’t think we’ve been together long enough to go further. I totally am willing to marry the right girl and I even have thousands on the ready for a ring (or male dowry, as people in this community call it, lol). I like the idea of going for hotter girls though – not because they’re hotter, but because I think you might be right that they can afford to be less slutty. They are less likely to feel the need to use sex as bait. That’s a good idea.
@Brendan – I agree. Russian women on the whole are just as bad as American women. Actually I think on the whole they are easier, although that could be a gringo effect. I really like what I see from the Orthodox Church so far. The theology actually is pretty straight. I’m definitely doing my homework on the church. I don’t exactly know how to woman shop though in general. I’ve narrowed it down to the Internet really. Female soldiers are a no-go, I feel like many of them are just there to get military dick in the first place, and my church doesn’t really have anything for me to do so I find it hard to meet the women there.
At any rate, I’m glad Dalrock saw my post, I was surprised to see it on the home page here. I feel internet famous, lol, even though I’m using a fake name. It’s good to see all these perspectives on the matter and I think I’ve gleaned a lot of useful advice from the posters. I am not going to go bang to my hearts delight as some posters suggested. I really do think the Bible is against fornication and it’s clear on the matter.
As for purity bear – he’s a symbol of all that is totally gay within mainstream Protestantism. Driscoll has also completely lost me – I used to be a big fan, but I think he’s kind of dumb. He even rationalizes away his wife’s slutty behavior back in the day, basically saying it was due to her sexual abuse. He also thinks he acted immature for being angry after discovering it. Weird.
Don’t know if this was mentioned but the commercial referenced in Whiskey’s post here: http://whiskeys-place.blogspot.com/2012/01/modern-view-of-marriage.html should be all the answer needed to Driscoll’s drivel. Exactly like it says, “My boyfriend and I were going on vacation … we talked about getting a diamond, … but with all the points I earned … I flew us to the rock I really had in mind.” THAT is what we face today in the dating marketplace. Driscoll’s emotional rage filled outburst (which already makes me think it wasn’t something Spirit led) can go fly a kite. Women aren’t being held into account and thus they’ve poisoned the well. My own divorce is a great example of “Christian” women getting away with frivolous divorce because the Church as a whole didn’t do enough to shame such a concept.
@Bob,
“I have messed up a few times, but it’s hard. Not bein married and not being able to have sex eats at you.”
Hi Bob.
I’m sure it isn’t easy. As I said, God doesn’t promise life will be easy. Nowhere is the promise made in the Gospels, “Come to Jesus and everything will be peachy for you from now on”. Actually the opposite is promised. I don’t say this to discourage you, but to give you realistic expectations. The only thing promised in the Gospels ultimately is the Truth.
“I haven’t been a Christian that long, and my fiancé left me when I became one because she got pissed off that I started goin to church and talking about the Bible so much.”
I’m sorry to hear that.
“So I thought Christian women would be down with doing the right thing and I was wrong.”
I’m not sure this is true Bob. I think the problem is that you are fishing in the wrong pond. But it seems you are making the connection yourself.
“I met 1 decent Christian girl and she’s a Russian woman who is really into the Orthodox church. She seems quite moral and I feel no pressure to have sex with her. So i am considering joining the Orthodox church. If it doesn’t work out with her, I think I’ll look abroad, like the guy who mentioned Philipino brides said to do. One of my buds found a Philipino woman on the Internet and she’s awesome. She came here an married him right away. Russian women seem to be the best so far though, and they like us soldiers.”
Maybe that is a good plan. From various reading here it seems that marrying an “American girl” (BTW I’m an Australian) is probably a recipe for disaster as even the “christian” girls are deeply infected with feminist lunacy.
“Also, to the commenter who auggested telling women youre waiting til marriage on the first date – you cannot tell a woman that. It will raise red flags, or more accurately, ultra beta flags, in her mind.”
Fair enough. It was just a suggestion. It seemed like it was worth getting the question out of the way though as you seemed to be running into the problem of getting a few dates in and then it all blowing up in your face. Also, a better suggestion would be to find some place where waiting till you are married is actually the expectation, thus making it a non-issue but it seems like you are not in such a place.
“People who recommend this have little to no experience interacting with the SMP.”
You are right I do not. Had one serious girl friend and am married to her now. I’ve learned a lot since coming here but much of the knowledge is theoretical.
Also if I came across as suggesting you were not a christian i’m sorry. I didn’t mean to suggest that. Although from your original post it did seem like you were opting to sleep with the girl to make things work as if you “had no choice”. It is good to see that that is not the choice you are making.
Jason
I made it about a minute into Driscoll’s video before returning to my music. Right around the part where he says he intimidate our women by looking at them in some vague, unknowable way.
That and the fact that he is absolutely dripping in self righteousness while simultaneously not knowing what the @#$% he is talking about.
Commenter Bob is just finding out what a lot of us youngin’s already have. The girls in church are no different. In fact, some are worse. A lot of my school’s “bicycles” amazingly, no, miraculously (!), got very devout senior year/right after graduation.
“Nor do I care for what Bible scholars have to say, for the most part.”
Mark, I said I’d give you the last word on the subject, and I meant it. We’ll agree to disagree and put this subject to rest. To the remainder of the crowd here I present to you by virtue of Mark’s quote above, a shining example of how Christian girls easily justify their actions. It’s a template for what the bible describes as “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.”
♬ There ain’t no hamster like a Holy Ghost hamster cuz a Holy Ghost hamster don’t stop! ♬
Great article, Dalrock. And Mark, thanks for the debate; you sound just like my old man, and I respect that greatly.
@ Bob-” Driscoll has also completely lost me – I used to be a big fan, but I think he’s kind of dumb. He even rationalizes away his wife’s slutty behavior back in the day, basically saying it was due to her sexual abuse. He also thinks he acted immature for being angry after discovering it. Weird.”
I cant believe i missed that. I see your finally on my side Bob.
The other reason Mark Driscoll is getting mad that men don’t marry sluts:
Maybe he created a few of them himself in his younger, alpha, skirt-opening days (I’m not sure how often alphas skirt-chase, since women come to them).
And he doesn’t want them to ruin his marriage.
That’s also the reason players want beta men to get married: takes the heat of dealing with the woman on a daily basis off of them, while they get all the good bits of a relationship without having to be in one.
Ah, that’s the definition of alpha: Making others pay for your lifestyle.
P Ray, I couldn’t have said it any better. Your last sentiments regarding alpha’s is spot on, mate. Mark is the type of guy who would secretly high-five a “brother” for getting some when he is young and then “repenting” afterwards when he has landed a submissive 7,8,or 9. I’ve seen alpha’s like him in my church and I didn’t waste any time in calling out their bluff’s and their con-job games. You know, that is what they are…grifters or “con-men”. That’s why women say they are attracted to “confidence”…it’s a quality that is found in abudance with “confidence men” who use and abuse their way to financial wealth and sexual wealth. They are inherently attracted to certain criminal pathologies, that alone aren’t any problem, but with a sliding moral infrastructure lead to slutitude and the rest of the men who CHOSE not act upon their baser instincts and took up the real call for Christ, like Bob is wanting to, are the ones who end up having to “man up” and clean up the slack. I don’t eat regurgitated food, and I don’t wear hand-me-down second-rate clothing..so I sure as hell am not going to marry and f$^% a recycled woman. Sorry, that’s just a personal standard I maintain. Bob, I will pray for your brother. And if no one has already thanked you, thank you for defending our freedoms, well..thank you for your honorable sacrifice.
Bob, maybe you should consider actually writing down your requirements. It’s one of life’s ironies that we men will pour over specifications on all sorts of things that we want, such as cars, guns, computers, sound systems, etc. and methodically list advantages vs. disadvantages in order to reach a decision, but all too often we just throw our hands up in the air when it comes to women.
I agree that any potential wife for you must be very, very loyal due to the different situation she will find herself in. So perhaps that needs to be first on the list: deep, absolute loyalty to you. Maybe she should have therefore grown up in a faithful church, preferably with two parents. As an officers wife she needs to be articulate, able to hold up a conversation at least for a little while. She needs to be able to keep to a schedule even when it’s not all that easy. So she needs to have good impulse control, and a future-time orientation: she needs to know all by herself how to control herself, and sacrifice some present short-term pleasures for longer term goals, right?
Such requirements, if you agree, screen out a lot of venues – forget bars and other singles havens. And as you know, it screens out a lot of women in churches, too. Maybe you need to learn to like classical music and go spend time with whatever groups attend the symphony, or opera. These entertainments are not as stimulating as the latest CGI movie, and last for a couple of hours with an intermission, so people who go need to have impulse control. If there is any sort of book society, that might be worth looking into. Or museum guild. Things where people with patience and curiousity go. It would be very, very good for an officer’s wife to have some sort of thing that she can do on her own – painting, or other artistic work, for example – that will keep her off of Facebook.
Draw up a short list of “must have” requirements, and another short list of “deal killers” (you already have one deal killer on your list – easy sex). Forget the cosmetic details, the “red hair, green eyes, 5’7″, C-cup” etc. because that doesn’t matter as much as her character, right? Then think about where such people are more likely to be found, I offered some suggestions above. Go to those places, avoid places where such people aren’t.
Last, let it be known to the wives of other men near your rank that you are looking. I kind of hesitate to write this, because on the one hand I spent part of my childhood in a base town surrounded by families with upper NCO’s and some officers, but on the other hand that was a long time ago and some aspects of military society may have changed. But it is perhaps worth considering, because the mil-wives should be able to screen out flakes and sluts on their own. They sure used to do that years ago, sometimes with a vengeance. Hmm. I wonder if Hestia is still blogging? She had good insights into all of this. Dalrock? Anyone know?
@P Ray
True this is one of the reasons why Alpha’s want beta’s to marry sluts
They want beta’s out of the way, so they can keep the fertile hot chicks for themselves & other alphas
It’s basic soft harem management, tie up the beta’s with useless used up infertile sluts, while the alpha’s pump & dump fertile carousel riders
if a man wishes to be principled and dictate that there won’t be sex until marriage because that is how he wants to conduct himself, he won’t be respected for this noble stance, he will be ridiculed and disrespected as a beta schlub named Herb who will be lucky to get the friend zone at best.
This is EXACTLY how I was treated by “Christian” women when I was single. So-called Christian women were either (a) not interested in me at all (most of them), or (b) would willingly fuck after a few dates — with a few very rare, rare exceptions. At one point I thought, “All the righteous ones LJBF me and I only can attract the sluts” — but now I’m more cynical and I think that many of those I believed to be good, simply weren’t attracted *to me* but slutted around with other guys. However I can’t be sure of this.
Whatever the case, It’s MUCH easier for a man to get laid, than get married, even in church. Combine that with the fact that modern womens’ educational & economic expectations force most men to stay single til age 30+, and you have a recipe for near universal fornication. And severe, mindwarping frustration for the small minority that holds out.
Most Christian women wouldn’t give me the time of day (niceguy syndrome), but of those who did date me, almost everyone that I ever got past 1-2 dates with, tried some sort of seduction. When I was strong and held firm, I was quickly dumped; when I was weak, i sometimes gave into the heavy pettting game and went farther than I should, to my shame. In both situations I was MOCKED for refusing to go “all the way” til the wedding. Three “bible believing christian” women openly stated — 2 to my face, 1 behind by back — that they ruled me out of consideration because I wouldn’t fuck them before the wedding.
I never went all the way til my wedding night. At age 38. While I was still single, this made me a freak. Now, somehow, it makes me a hero in the eyes of Christian women: “Wow, you waited, that’s great!” What gives?
van Rooinek it is pretty simple. Game explains it handily. It is a larger scale version of the problem a man on his own has doing approaches: he’s an unknown quantity and women can’t decide if he’s a “creep” or a “keep”. On the other hand, a man who is with a woman is already “socially proofed” because he clearly has some value to at least one woman.
Before, when you were on the market, you were an unknown quantity and thus to be tested. Given the herd mentality of women, and the widespread “dump your virginity ASAP after high school if not sooner” meme that is dominant among young women, your refusal to “do it” made you different. Possibly “weird”. Maybe even “creepy”. Women want a man who is a little bit different from other men in their eyes, but not too much different lest their sistahs make fun of her for hooking a loser.
Now that you are married, you are known to be “a catch” (social proofing) and so having waited to have sex means that you are more likely to be faithful to your wife, which is a definite plus.
Does this mean that women talk one way and act another? Yep. Does that make them hypocrites? Well, to many men the answer is clearly “yes”, to women the answer is more ambiguous – “I meant what I said when I said it, but now that I see what I said doesn’t lead to what I want, I don’t mean it any more”.
Do you and your wife ever encounter these other women socially? I think that could be entertaining, possibly hugely so, but not everyone might agree.
van Rooinek it is pretty simple. Game explains it handily.
Sadly the truth. As a genetic oldfashioned romantic, I was horrified when I discovered early versions of “game” (it wasn’t called that 10 years ago) and realized that it was the truth. I then faced the terrible choice of gaming to get a Christian wife, or being honest and staying alone. I stayed honest – and eventually, to my happy surprise, it paid off.
a man who is with a woman is already “socially proofed” because he clearly has some value to at least one woman.
True. As soon as I got engaged I became a chick magnet! Literally the next day, women started hitting on me. Strangers, too — not just women who knew me and knew I was engaged. I guess my whole demeanor must have changed somehow, once I’d closed the deal. I also had a couple of women express regret at missing their chance at me. After 10 years of marriage, gray hair, etc, I get hit on more than ever.
Now that you are married, you are known to be “a catch” (social proofing) and so having waited to have sex means that you are more likely to be faithful to your wife, which is a definite plus.
Siring 3 cute kids didn’t hurt either. “You make such cute babies!” — I hear that a lot. It’s a genetic quality assessment, LOL..
“I meant what I said when I said it, but now that I see what I said doesn’t lead to what I want, I don’t mean it any more”.
In another context this translates as “Rape!”
Do you and your wife ever encounter these other women socially? I think that could be entertaining, possibly hugely so, but not everyone might agree.
She’s met 3 of them, including one who broke up with me for refusing to have sex. (FYI that one got knocked up later and is now a single mother… ).
She doesn’t like any of them. So I allowed them to fade out of our lives.
Her complaints are more along the lines of dipshit Christian boys flirting with her then pulling out the “girlfriend” card when she responds.
Strange. I thought that was something only cruel women (including “Christians”) did to men. To be led on, to be brazenly flirted with, to see the pupillary responses and body language all lining up, and — just when you’re ready to ask her out — to be told, “I have a boyfriend”, or worse, “I don’t believe in dating” (the IKDG hypocrisy)… it’s really quite annoying. I’m sure girls don’t like it either — I just never imagined that they’d be victims of it.
Driscoll is just Hugo Schwyzer with a pulpit, a guilt-ridden self-flagellating alpha male who’s had the world at his fingertips and thinks all the other guys must have had that too
That’s a really excellent summary of everything that’s wrong with the perceptual world of both Driscoll and Schwyzer. Their experiences are true *for them* but not for the vast majority of men.
As a genetic oldfashioned romantic, I was horrified when I discovered early versions of “game” (it wasn’t called that 10 years ago) and realized that it was the truth.
Somewhere, here or at Badger’s most likely, Deti commented once that upon learning Game he had the distinct feeling of “sleeping with the enemy”. I know that feeling very well myself. But the alternative is worse in the long run. Pretending all that hogwash about “more moral” and “naturally monogamous” is the truth only leads to trouble, heartache, and pain. But it is kind of like something out of a horror movie for those men who lived with the lies a long time – llke pulling back the sheets and finding she has tentacles instead of arms. It’s that jarring.
I then faced the terrible choice of gaming to get a Christian wife, or being honest and staying alone. I stayed honest – and eventually, to my happy surprise, it paid off.
You did the right thing for you, but don’t kid yourself, you need Game. Because at certain levels, all women really are “like that”.
As soon as I got engaged I became a chick magnet! Literally the next day, women started hitting on me. Strangers, too — not just women who knew me and knew I was engaged. I guess my whole demeanor must have changed somehow, once I’d closed the deal. I also had a couple of women express regret at missing their chance at me.
Social proofing is powerful, and don’t kid yourself, some of those women were hoping you’d cheat with them. At the micro level, women compete viciously with each other for men- their biology demands it, and taking a proven man away from another woman is a triumph on multiple levels. Don’t forget what the female hindbrain wants from men: sperm and resources.
<i. After 10 years of marriage, gray hair, etc, I get hit on more than ever.
We age like wine, not cottage cheese. And I don’t know about you, but I find that Churchian women are just as prone to drop IOI’s on me as any others. Because AWALT.
Siring 3 cute kids didn’t hurt either. “You make such cute babies!” — I hear that a lot. It’s a genetic quality assessment, LOL..,
That is exactly what it is, however the message may be wrapped up.
“I meant what I said when I said it, but now that I see what I said doesn’t lead to what I want, I don’t mean it any more”.
In another context this translates as “Rape!”
Yes it does, but in the context of married / LTR shit testing, that is the gist of more than one disagreement. The problem for women, as I pointed out to Suz, is women now have the habit of shit testing to destruction, then wondering what happened. Again I speculate that daughters of divorce will be more prone to this, given their known insecurities.
I’m pretty sure you’ve heard this already, if you’ve been married for 10 years.
With regard to the other woemn…I guess you probably aren’t into schadefreude, then.
Deti commented once that upon learning Game he had the distinct feeling of “sleeping with the enemy”
Yeah, that’s part of why I couldn’t bring myself to use it, except defensively to some extent. To game a woman to the altar would be conquering an enemy, someone to whom I could never show my true self. How lonely.
Pretending all that hogwash about “more moral” and “naturally monogamous” is the truth only leads to trouble, heartache, and pain.
Well… I never believed women were “more moral” (or less so) than men, etc. However I did have the expectation that devout Christian women would be more moral and more monogamous than nonChristian women. Some are… many aren’t.
With regard to the other woemn…I guess you probably aren’t into schadefreude, then.
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth…..
Mark Driscoll is totally out to lunch.
Why the hell isn’t he shaming the sluts? It’s disgusting.
Where does the bible even say that a man having sex before marriage is a sin? Yeah that might be the message of the Catholic church and some protestant churches, but where is that message in the bible??
Badger—
Good analogy and good point.
Yuup. Women are the gatekeepers of whether sex occurs, absent rape. Our drives for sex are wired so as to usually bring about that differential result.
FH–
Yeah agreed.
I’m never listening to or reading anything he says again.
Where does the bible even say that a man having sex before marriage is a sin? Yeah that might be the message of the Catholic church and some protestant churches, but where is that message in the bible??
Marriage is honorable among all, but fornicators and adulterers will be judged by God.
Hebrews 13:4
Driscoll married a slut himself. He can’t criticise sluts. So he turns his anger on men. He looks like he has a problem with Anger, one of the seven deadly sins.
The double standard seems to be that women in churches can be slutty, because they are precious daughters of the King. Woe betide any man that demurs to date them, because we know that men are evil, selfish, irresponsible sinners that can only be redeemed by constant watchfulness on their behalf by pastors, accountability groups, and significant others…?
I wrestled long and needlessly the question of dating the reclaimed sluts. I need not have bothered. As has been observed elsewhere, many of those girls had been tainted by their 5 minutes of alpha. Normal betas and deltas were never enough after their carousel rides.
Two decades on, many of them are divorced, some partnered, some are single. Of the latter group, career became a significant focus, be it secular or otherwise. And still, they pine for an alpha, and become increasingly crazy and hateful because of course, in their minds it is men who will not commit.
Little wonder so many men leave the churches in such an environment. . .
I could not get through the whole Mark Driscoll video. One thing that came to mind though was phrenology: he has that wide face & thick neck purported to be common among sociopaths…
@Anonymous Reader – That is all extremely good insight. I made a list of things I need in a woman based on it – you did a lot of my work for me though and I deeply appreciate it. You had a very thoughtful, helpful response. This is what I have so far:
Devout Christian
Conservative
Loyal
Pro-military
Supportive
Traditional and family oriented. Willing to stay home with the fruit of my loins
Articulate and intelligent
Able to keep a schedule and self-sufficient.
Very responsible
Good impulse control
She should have hobbies and stuff that will keep her off Facebook all day.
Looks aren’t too important, as long as I find her attractive. I added “devout Christian” because I don’t want “CINO’s.” I think I need to get out of the Evangelical church and find something else. Perhaps the Catholic, Orthodox or maybe Southern Baptist churches (ton of ‘em where I’m going soon anyway). I need to figure out which I believe is best, preferably soon. I don’t want to cultivate any new hobbies purely to meet women, because that would be kind of veering off my own path and I my leisure time is precious, but perhaps I could find something along the lines you mentioned that I like.
@Van Rooinek – You seem to have encountered the same problem I did. I’m glad you mentioned that story because some people think it’s peculiar to me, and it’s clearly not. Other guys have had the same problem. I think it’s common. Many “church girls” want to live a totally secular life with impunity and use church to frame themselves in their own minds, and the minds of others as well, as “good girls.” They’re good even though they ride the carousel, have one night stands, and sleep with their boyfriends without regret because they dress conservatively on Sunday morning, sing some Jesus songs, and posts some Bible verses out of context on Facebook. Church sluts are the worst because they’re self-righteous sluts. They still think they’re innocent and pure.
This is not meant to trash on Christian women in general. I have met a great deal of GREAT Christian women too – just they had husbands or boyfriends (who were usually good dudes and are close friends of mine).
@Van Rooinek
“Yeah, that’s part of why I couldn’t bring myself to use it, except defensively to some extent”
Game is more about undoing all effiminate crap youve picked up, thnx to a feminised society, then being something youre not
Youre meant to be masculine & exude game naturally through your pores, game is the norm for an alpha, its not something you learn
Game isnt something you learn, its more something you recognise as the truth
Anyone get a kick out of the Australian PM’s little fiasco like I did? Haha, stupid feminist cunt! Oh look who had to get her out of all that trouble…you guessed it, a man!
@Bob
You missed the most important criteria: her ability to be led.
If she has that trait, many of the other things become immaterial since you can lead her to those (assuming you possess benevolent masculine dominance). Keep in mind that many “Devout Christian” women have an ingrained belief in female moral superiority and thus you may find it difficult to be the head of the family.
“Somewhere, here or at Badger’s most likely, Deti commented once that upon learning Game he had the distinct feeling of “sleeping with the enemy”.”
It was something like that. It was a feeling of wariness in looking at my own wife, a sense of “I know who and what you really are now. And some of it is downright ugly and sinister.” And then you live with your guard up, prepared for the worst.
That passes and morphs into a sense of calm. You now know that if you really have to do it, that if push came to shove, that if your marriage came to an end, you would survive and even thrive. “If the unthinkable happens and she leaves and divorces me, I will still be OK.”
I’ve said this before many times. The more profound feeling I had was anger and bewilderment that no one — not ONE person — had taught me any truth about intergender relationships. I stumbled onto Roissy at age 42. Literally everything I had learned in the previous 30 years about women, dating, relationships and sex was not only wrong, but absolutely 180 degrees away from correct. There wasn’t a shred of truth in anything that my parents, teachers, pastors and other authorities taught me about these things.
My head spins when I think about:
1. years wasted on women completely unworthy for a date, much less a relationship.
2. thousands of dollars wasted on supplicating to unworthy women.
3. the worthy women I could have dated but passed over in favor of seeking relationships with unworthy sluts
4. the opportunities and friendships lost from pursuing unworthy women
5. the grinding dryness of inability to get even a date (this is something that women just Do. Not. Get.)
6. the repeated nuclear rejections and LJBFs
7. the time and effort wasted on Churchian women.
8. the complete inability to identify, address and see through games, emotional outbursts, shit tests, pity ploys, and silent treatments
But the worst part was looking back on the seemingly endless parade of damaged women. The entitlement princesses. The status whores. The crazy girls. The bottom feeder sluts trying to pass themselves off as “nice church girls.” The chatty girls who go on and on about the most banal, inane subjects, who cannot remain silent, whose historical frames of reference begin around 1995, and whose intellectual curiosity begins and ends with all things Kardashian.
The clingy needy girls who can’t think their ways out of wet paper sacks. The attention whores. The “Daddy issues” girls. The alcoholics and problem drinkers. The, ahem, *plus-sized* ladies with insanely overinflated egos acting like divas, stuffing themselves into clothes they cannot wear and yet acting as though they should command the attentions of every man in the place.
The used up, washed up carousel riders with baby rabies, double digit partner counts, Petri dish pelvises with who-knows-what organisms residing therein, and cigarettes dangling from their mouths as they tell you to f*ck off. Or worse, the used up carousel rider who looks to you as her last, best hope, all while she screams toward The Wall at Mach 2.
As you look back, you know you weren’t her first choice. Hell, you weren’t her second, third or even 15th choice. You are not even Plan B. You, sir, are probably Plan P or Q. Plan A was Bad Boy/Garage Band drummer/Harley rider/Frat boy/ Football Star. He used up.her best years while you were standing by the beer keg, slowly drinking yourself into a stupor while watching girls like her make out with, and go home with, the men she REALLY wanted.
Any father who does not teach his son game is doing his son a grave, awful disservice. You have to teach your son more than just “Keep your d*ck in your pants.”
Of course, with perhaps half of American boys not living with their fathers, I might just have identified why we have a problem.
Game is more about undoing all effiminate crap youve picked up
Well… in my case, being raised in an intact home with an oldfashioned Dad & Mom, the nonfunctional relationship stuff I picked up was not “effiminate” at all. Far from it. It was old fashioned manhood, at its purest… which is what modern women hate most of all.
I eventually found a woman who had been raised like me.
PS… It was old fashioned manhood, at its purest… which is what modern women hate most of all. …. and apparently in generations past, it worked just fine. Feminism is eternally wrong, but oldfashioned manhood used to be what women craved the most.
@7Man – I agree, submissiveness is important. I’ll add the “ability to be lead” to my list. I also agree about the devout Christian thing, but I would define a devout Christian woman as one who understands the Bible and does not have some misguided belief in female moral superiority. Of course, I’m not expecting perfection, as that’s impossible, but so far I have a good list of traits to look for. I’m also kind of taking a step back, I realized I don’t really care if I don’t get married for another 10 years, and the men in my family age real slow and live real long, so I’ll still be able to pull a woman in her 20′s for a long time. I’m just going to practice my game on lots of women and hopefully I come across a good one, rather than just saving my game for the ones I think are good. This should keep my skills sharp and ready for when a good prospect comes around.
My reaction to figuring all this out wasn’t disappointing and I embraced it all wholeheartedly. It was like finally reading something that made sense out of all I experienced. I didn’t think learning game or about how women think and act was as depressing or “nihilism inspiring” as many do. I was glad to learn that I could kind of be an ass and do whatever I want and it would get me more women (and I did) than supplicating. Betas live a sad life – they try so hard when not trying and living your own damn life is what works. Knowing that looking out for #1 was the key to success was not disappointing at all. Knowing that I could spend all my time doing MMA no matter how much it pissed off a girlfriend, or that I could go do whatever I wanted with 0 concern for her input was liberating. I got my little bro to join the Army today. He told me he had to get his girlfriend’s advice, and I told him he was being a pussy, and that as a man he needs to be 100% independent of her. She’s a sidekick, not an equal. He got that same grin on his face I had when I first heard such things, and bam, he was signing his life away like a pro.
@Van Rooinek
“old fashioned manhood”
Pointless without the correct context, the amount of asshole & dominance required for modern chicks “old fashioned manhood” just doesnt cut it
Ramp it up to sociopath & youre almost there … lol
7Man
You missed the most important criteria: her ability to be led.
That’s the heart of the matter. Which reminds me, Uncle Elmer has from time to time, in various places, touted the usefulness of ballroom dancing. I can see one thing: a woman who lets you lead on the dance floor may or may not let you lead off of it, but a woman who won’t let you lead on the dance floor is all but certain to fight your leadership in other ways. Plus it is an older, civilized art that is pleasant in and of itself. I probably should look into it myself.
Bob, I am happy to be of service to you and any other man who finds my ideas useful.
Deti:
+1 on that. All of it. Every bit.
And that reminds me.
I was talking to a man the other day. His son just turned 11, is the youngest child and only boy. This man was reflecting that he was the youngest child and only boy in his family as well. He observed that he never learned much leadership growing up. He was always the “little brother”. So when he was an adult, and his father was very sick, and his mother was panicking, and his sister was drinking too much, he didn’t really have any reference, any training, to step up and lead the family. He felt like he’d let them all down. But as we talked, it came out that he really had never been taught how to be the head of a family, so he just had to fake it, and on the whole he hadn’t done as bad a job as maybe he thought. And he came from an intact family. What about the boys and young men, as you say, growing up with no father?
One of the things that this amorphous blob of a group of angry men is going to have to do is help younger men learn how to lead. In my opinion, leadership starts in the mirror; I have to lead that guy to do right, and not do wrong, then I can lead other people.
@Anonymous Reader
but a woman who won’t let you lead on the dance floor is all but certain to fight your leadership in other ways.
BINGO… I can attest to this!
Van Rooinek—
Marriage is honorable among all, but fornicators and adulterers will be judged by God.
Hebrews 13:4
That seems a pretty thin reed to base the Christian church’s centuries of inveighing againt pre-marital fornication. It’s also in the Old Testament.
In contrast to fornication, adultery is condemned throughout the bible, that is the adultery of wives is condemned. Not of husbands, unless they had sex with another man’s wife, in which case he was guilty of adultery as well. Christianity and Judaism are not gender neutral despite what one might think listening to today’s preachers.
In contrast to fornication, adultery is condemned throughout the bible, that is the adultery of wives is condemned. Not of husbands, unless they had sex with another man’s wife, in which case he was guilty of adultery as well.
I’ve encountered this flawed exigesis before. Rather that go through all the passages, Old and New, and have you spit them back at me with your own preferred spin, I will simply note this:
(1) (3) The passages on premarital sex, that moderns are so eager to reinterpret away so as to exempt men (ummm… with whom are they supposed to HAVE the premarital sex?), have been traditionally read and understood as confining sex til marriage throughout all the history of the texts, all 2000 years of Christian history, right up til now:
(2) Sex creates children. That’s what it’s for. Even with modern contraception, children can still occur. Throughout all time, it has been recognized that, on the whole, children are far better cared for, if they are raised with both a father as well as a mother in a stable family unit. (Far better behaved, too… there’s a reason why “bastard” evolved into an epithet for those practicing bad behavior.) For the best outcome of the children, therefore, reserving conception (and therefore sex) for marriage is the obvious and logically inescapable way of ensuring that as many children as possible, be born in the most advantageous circumstances. Could God FAIL to issue such a command, and still be a good and wise God? Or is it more likely the the traditional intrepretation is right after all?
Have a look at the lives of women you know who’ve gotten knocked up outside of wedlock, and get back to me.
(3) Sex spreads diseases. Some tribes became extinct (Tasmanians) or nearly so (Maori) when their promiscuity encountered sexually transmitted diseases from the outside world, resulting in widespread sterility. Even today, with antibiotics, condoms, etc, we have a fertility destroying chlamydia epidemic, not to mention other diseases. The one and only obvious and logically inescapable way of protecting yourself, is avoiding all sex outside marriage. Could God FAIL to issue such a command, and still be a good and wise God? Or is it more likely the the traditional intrepretation is right after all?
Christianity and Judaism are not gender neutral despite what one might think listening to today’s preachers.
No, they aren’t. The husband is the head of the wife. Men are required to lead the church. And in the OT (and in NT times under very limited circumstances), polygyny — one husband with several wives — has been tolerated, but never the reverse.
That still doesn’t alter the fact that both sexes are forbidden to have sex outside marriage. In the words of a famous movie character: Search your feelings, you know it to be true… .
@Rooinek
How is your “spin” any different then Doug1s?
The bible is patriarchial, not gender neutral, fact
As such the bible holds women accountable for fornication not men as a rule, with a few exceptions & for good reason
Women cheat more then men, regardless of what bints like walsh say
Van Rooinek really wins this argument. Fornication is obviously a sin. I wish it wasn’t, but what we wish is irrelevant if we claim to be Christian. Additionally, just because the Bible is patriarchal, it doesn’t mean men are free to fornicate while women are not. Men can only fornicate with a fornicator. You cannot complain about women being sluts if you’re promoting male fornication, because males of course need women to fornicate with.
Duh.
Wow. Yelling and screaming and guilting me to marry despite the lack of good reasons to do so. Not a very new (or effective) tactic. But I’ve never encountered it from a man before.
@Bob
How the hell does Rooinek win anything?
The bible specifically holds women accountable for fornication, not men as a rule, check everywhere from proverbs to solomon, even the parables used by david condemns women as a rule
Also your missing an obvious bigger picture
Fornication has nothing to do with sin
Youre not meant to fornicate IF you want a family
We see this in the bible quite clearly, how many prostitutes were married in the bible?
How many people slept around unless they were super rich, just like todays alphas, or wanted to marry?
Youre not meant to fornicate IF you want a family
In case you missed it, fornication is sex. Sex produces children. The biology doesn’t care if you are married or not. By defintion, your children are part of your family.
It’s not about “van Rooinek winning”, it’s about LOGIC winning and you being on the wrong side.
Holy fuc*in’ Sh*T…..
It almost makes you think that the sluts are prowling the pews in search of people that they can perpetrate divorce theft upon. Is nowhere sacred??!!
The Driscoll alpha act on display here is designed to tickle the ‘gina tingle while smashing down as beta every other man in the room. Condemnation in full display. The real problem I have with it is that the “Pastor” is undermining the relationship of everyone who is sitting in that room. He frames every other male and dominates them in front of their women. (And he absolutely knows that he is doing this). Nice going pal.
The Driscoll alpha act on display here is designed to tickle the ‘gina tingle while smashing down as beta every other man in the room
If you are right, the logical outcome will be the fall of his ministry in a few years due to serial adultery on a grand scale. Time will tell.
He looks like a sanitized megachurch David Koresh to me. And as far as time telling, I think I’m moving in the prophetic.
I’m getting tired of hearing about how Christian men need to “man up” and marry the used up sluts.
Uh, no.
Message to Christian women: You need to “woman up”. You need to stop sleeping around, develop pleasant, optimistic personalities, marry good Christian men, submit to your husbands, quit your jobs so that other good Christian men can get working again, and start having lots of babies.
@IAL
Driscoll is actually what most pastors want to be. Most however try the softer white knight approach, thinking that THAT makes the tingler tinger. They end up being useful idiots, tools.
If someone took the aggressive approach of Driscoll, yet directed his testosterone geyser at the ladies half the time, he may actually do some good. Just to get things into balance he should not speak at or to men for about 20 years, THEN start preaching to both men and women.
Message to Christian women: You need to “woman up”. You need to stop sleeping around, develop pleasant, optimistic personalities, marry good Christian men, submit to your husbands, quit your jobs so that other good Christian men can get working again, and start having lots of babies.
Amen. But ya won’t hear that on a Sunday morning.
Thanks, vR. I’m really, really tired of hearing Christian pastors, commentators and others shrieking at me, and men in general, to “man up”. Even more insidious than the video games complaint and the “marry the ‘reformed sluts’” exhortation is the new “Man up 2.0″, which, boiled to its essentials, seems to be:
“You men need to man up and be more attractive to women! You need to learn some Game so you can be ready for marriage and marry a woman when she’s ready to get married!”
My problem with this is an implication that men, and Game, exist to serve women — specifically, for the ultimate end of providing husbands for women. No consideration is given to the man’s goals, wants, needs, desires, hopes or dreams. No consideration is given to the idea that a man has certain things he wants from his life, from a woman, from marriage. It is simply a given that he is not a man until he is sacked up enough to get a woman interested in him enough to consider marrying him, and until he is provisioning for a woman (who might or might not actually love him or want him).
Even more insidious than the video games complaint and the “marry the ‘reformed sluts’” exhortation is the new “Man up 2.0″, which, boiled to its essentials, seems to be:
“You men need to man up and be more attractive to women! You need to learn some Game so you can be ready for marriage and marry a woman when she’s ready to get married!”
My problem with this is an implication that men, and Game, exist to serve women
Exactly, which is what PMAFT and others have been talking about when it comes to “Game2.0/Man-Up2.0″. It’s being turned *against* men as a tool that makes men better tools for women. This a danger that is inherent in Game, in my view, if it becomes mainstream.
Thanks, vR. I’m really, really tired of hearing Christian pastors, commentators and others shrieking at me, and men in general, to “man up”.
Again, Amen, Deti.
I DID “man up”… at age 14. It was then that I decided… with no religious input whatsoever (that came later in life), not to go “all the way”, as we called it then, till marriage — and to evaluate and date girls solely on the critera of, “could I marry her?”. Manning up at an early age, SHOULD have gotten me married by 19, if Driscoll were right. In fact, I had to wait til my late 30s.
Granted some men do behave as Driscoll condemns, but there are many, many more who do exactly what he says to do…. only to be stomped on by women as a reward.
And churches won’t touch this subject.
BRendan: You’re right. I should have credited PMAFT who has been way out in front on this.
vR:
“Manning up at an early age, SHOULD have gotten me married by 19, if Driscoll were right. In fact, I had to wait til my late 30s.”
Yep.
Every time I hear “Man up” I’ll offer “woman up” right back at them. You want a man? Be a woman. To me that means:
–learn basic homemaking skills: cooking, cleaning, child care, basic budgeting, time management.
–if you’re slutting around, STOP. If you’re not slutting around, DON’T START.
–be nice.
–look for the good in the people and situations around you.
–give the men who ask you out a chance instead of rejecting them outright.
–stop acting like men.
–get rid of your toxic uberbitch friends.
–ditch the following personality traits: sarcasm/snarkiness (ESPECIALLY this one), vulgarity, use of public profanity, arrogance, exhibitionism, entitlement, implusiveness, social dominance.
–adopt the following personality traits: kindness, pleasantness, optimism, cheerfulness, gentleness, self-control, humility, demureness, modesty, submission.
And the blue pill nonsense continues: http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/13/living/courting-love/index.html?hpt=hp_bn8 .
You can’t make this stuff up. On the one hand, you have the obvious: the rise of hypergamy, the increased competition among women for the sexy men, and the impact this has on sexuality. On the other hand, you have the same old nonsense about love notes, poems and flowers. The same bad advice being given again and again and again. I honestly think that women don’t know what attracts them and turns them on, or turn a blind eye to it for some reason, all leading to the perpetual blue pill worldview.
Brendan:
Women don’t want to admit what attracts them and turns them on. They don’t want to admit that:
1. They have gina tingles, or that they have sometimes followed their tingles. Every woman who has ever discussed her sex life with me (and there have been many) over the past 20-odd years has confessed a ONS or SNL. She’s either banged a man a few hours after meeting him, or she let a cad pump & dump her, fully knowing what was about to happen. (And I do mean EVERY woman who has been willing to talk about it.) “I just couldn’t help myself, he was so beautiful!” “He swept me off my feet!” “I was so turned on, I just had to have him!” I’m talking all kinds of women — Christian women, nonbelievers, uberbitch lawyers, teachers, housewives, beautiful women, homely women, everything from 3s up to HB 9s.
2. They want to submit to a worthy man. She will willingly submit her body, career aspirations, ambitions and life goals to those of a man she can look up to.
3. They want to be dominated in bed. Rough sex and being told what to do in the bedroom is a turn on.
4. There are some high-T women who need more alpha than other women and who get into sex more than other women.
5. She gets horny, she wants sex, she fantasizes, and she has (or at least wants) orgasms.
I am convinced some of this is the antislut defense. A woman’s admission she likes sex or has had SNLs or ONSs is tantamount to an admission of sluthood. She wants the sex a slut can have — she just doesn’t want to look like a slut.
Some of it, I think, is the Mary complex — the insistence that women are good, pure vessels who exist solely to be hoisted onto pedestals. A woman’s sexuality is immaculate and good, while a man’s sexuality is dirty and bad. Any suggestion that a woman’s relationship or sexual motives are ulterior, sinister or self-serving is an accusation of sluthood and an affront to God’s highest creation.
I was link chasing from that cnn article and found a comment under an article, Oh…Em…Gee (flicks hair)….look at the depth of insight, the self awareness, the cutting edge truths this girl discovered in her, uh……research project:
———————–
From *Jen*
“I actually did a research project on whether the media influences expectations for marriage in college. The jury is out, basically, but I think the most interesting thing I found was a study stating that happiness in marriage (and relationships in general) is largely based on a person’s outlook, which generally falls into two categories: The Princess Category & The Hard Work Category (my titles). People who expect to meet The One, fall in love, and never have to work on it fall in love quicker & harder, but are more disappointed in the end when the relationship doesn’t measure up to that expectation. People who believe that successful relationships are built on hard work and not fate may not fall in love as hard, but were found to be more content in said relationship. Interesting tidbits to think about.”"”
———————————-
Oh man, if people knew this, cats and dogs would lay together Im tellin ya people
deti
I am convinced some of this is the antislut defense. A woman’s admission she likes sex or has had SNLs or ONSs is tantamount to an admission of sluthood. She wants the sex a slut can have — she just doesn’t want to look like a slut.
Standard line from women and especially teenaged girls regarding any sex: “It just happened!”, presumably a meteorite dropped from the sky and knocked her legs open…
A woman’s sexuality is immaculate and good, while a man’s sexuality is dirty and bad.
I first read a description of the male orgasm as “animalistic” in the 1980′s, but it probably was a quote from some 1970′s 2nd wave feminist. However I’ve little doubt that one could find similar texts in the Victorian era.
The experiments involving showing images to women while recording vaginal blood flow & moisture convinced me that women’s intellectualizing about what turns them on is just rationalization in many cases – their minds say “Oh, I don’t like that” but the hindbrain says “yes! more!”. None of this is news to anyone who’s studied Game, surely? I mean, c’mon, the evo-bio trail leading to women’s more fluid sexuality ought to be clear to anyone who is willing to look.
Seems to me that church youth group leaders should be promoting early marriage. College women should seriously think about marrying before graduation, for example.
That feeds my theory that there has only ever been one self help book written, and since then its been rewritten thousands of times and labeled and packaged differently, with devotees grabbing it and going wild eyed.
There is a gal on the forum I spend some time who has grown enamoured with this guy named Firestone….and she prefaces things with “Firestone says”…..for which I cannot take her seriously
I am convinced some of this is the antislut defense. A woman’s admission she likes sex or has had SNLs or ONSs is tantamount to an admission of sluthood. She wants the sex a slut can have — she just doesn’t want to look like a slut.
Possibly, but still. Why keep telling guys you want love notes, poems and flowers when you, yourself, know this doesn’t turn you on at all. There is some measure of self-delusion going on here, like was evident in the NYT-reported sex response studies (which generated a lot of defensive comments from women readers, predictably). It’s as if they *want* to think, *themselves*, that they are turned on by flowers and love notes, when in fact they are turned on by what we all know they are turned on by, and that’s that.
But beyond that, the sheer unwillingness of almost everyone in the blue pill haze to see what is objectively happening is pretty mystifying. I mean the article itself describes it aptly: the men women want are not lifting a finger and the women are coming to them, qualifying themselves to them. And this is seen as being “new”. Well, yes, but the rather obvious point is that a smallish number of men can command this kind of competition from a largish body of women — and yet this is going completely unnoticed and uncommented. The average joe schlub playing World of Warcraft doesn’t have women qualifying themselves to him. It’s the guy that every woman wants, and, frankly, why would he have to do more than show up in this world of overdriven hypergamy?
It’s just fascinating how in the dark most of the mainstream seems to be about what is objectively happening in this area.
@Brendan
„Exactly, which is what PMAFT and others have been talking about when it comes to “Game2.0/Man-Up2.0″. It’s being turned *against* men as a tool that makes men better tools for women. This a danger that is inherent in Game, in my view, if it becomes mainstream.”
Isn’t this already water under the bridge, really? Game has been rapidly going mainstream for years and none of the PUAs getting mainstream acceptance – and thus exposure – has ever questioned feminist orthodoxy. In fact, Neil Strauss openly supports feminism. And anything that fails to erode the feminist status quo is effectively a tool against men.
@Brendan
“Why keep telling guys you want love notes, poems and flowers when you, yourself, know this doesn’t turn you on at all.”
Well, broadly speaking it does turn women on, doesn’t it? As long as they’re already attracted to that man, of course, and as long as this is done in small doses. Women look for signs of commitment from men they find attractive.
It seems obvious to me that the reason female hypergamy is never discussed in the mainstream in any way is the realization among the upper classes that widespread male knowledge of female hypergamy would be extremely corrosive to social stability, at least in the long run. Pretty simple, really.
Brendan:
“There is some measure of self-delusion going on here *** It’s as if they *want* to think, *themselves*, that they are turned on by flowers and love notes, when in fact they are turned on by what we all know they are turned on by ***.”
Yes, precisely. If she tells herself that flowers and love notes turn her on while subconsciously knowing she wants to screw the bad boy, she can then claim the moral and sexual high ground. She’s a “good perrrrrrson”. She’s not a slut. She’s a chaste, moral, “higher” creature and she deserves a “nice guy who will treat [her] right”, even though she wants to bang Bad Boy McThuggerson.
“But beyond that, the sheer unwillingness of almost everyone in the blue pill haze to see what is objectively happening is pretty mystifying.”
This gets us to the “secret world” Hollenhund wrote about a few threads back. In the dating world, the alphas and the women know the real score. They know how the SMP really works. There is an effort afoot to purposely keep betas in the dark about the red pill. The more I read about the SMP and learn about Game, the more this starts to ring true. I remember my epiphany moments when reading heartiste (then Roissy) about a year ago. So many concepts were being explained so cogently. I knew of these things yet could not put them into words before. The “secret world” meme really resonates.
Brendan
t’s just fascinating how in the dark most of the mainstream seems to be about what is objectively happening in this area.
But the alternative would mean admitting that many “truths” about women are pretty lies. How many magazines or newspapers would that sell? And more to the point, how many people – both men and women – really can face that truth? Look at how many men resist “putting on the glasses”, and it’s in their interest to deal in reality rather than fantasy. As for women, well, look at their friends for clues as to what they value.
The reality of women and their psyche has been pretty systematically covered up for at least generations. It should be more of a surprise that any of us have shed the pretty lies, than that most people paid to write words still believe them.
Well, broadly speaking it does turn women on, doesn’t it? As long as they’re already attracted to that man, of course, and as long as this is done in small doses. Women look for signs of commitment from men they find attractive.
Not really a turn-on, though. Appreciated as a sign of commitment if she is already turned on, but not, in itself, a turn-on. And, in my experience, once commitment is established more or less, these things are turn-on killers for women — like the female equivalent of a boner killer, really. My point, of course, is that they do not attract, so they have rather little value in the early stages of courtship, which is what I think the CNN article was trying to address.
Well, broadly speaking it does turn women on, doesn’t it? As long as they’re already attracted to that man, of course, and as long as this is done in small doses. Women look for signs of commitment from men they find attractive.
Too coordinated for me. I agree more with Anonymous Reader — people don’t want to believe these things about the women in their lives -> their mothers, sisters, daughters, girlfriends, wives. It’s too threatening for this to be true. Understandable. The world would be much nicer if women were truly moral paragons who did no evil, and we only had to worry about oafish, lazy men who are evil by nature. In other words, things would be nicer, more liveable, if women really were naturally lifetime monogamous and loyal, and all that jazz — so there’s some incentive to keep believing the pretty lie. Still, it takes a pretty concerted effort, I think, at times, in light of what is increasingly being reported in the media – just the facts, I mean.
Some of the media silence is probably because masculine men who know that women buckle under dominance displays are unlikely to become journalists these days.
Also, I suspect the truth about women’s instincts is unpopular because it seems too mechanistic, deterministic and biological. Too close to the despised ideas about sociobiology and instinct. The idea does not fit with the progressive narrative that human nature is completely malleable.
@ Brendan:
“I mean the article itself describes it aptly: the men women want are not lifting a finger and the women are coming to them, qualifying themselves to them. And this is seen as being “new”. Well, yes, but the rather obvious point is that a smallish number of men can command this kind of competition from a largish body of women — and yet this is going completely unnoticed and uncommented.”
Of course, hypergamy is nothing new, nor is it new that a small number of men get large numbers of women fighting over them. What is new is that the competition is taking place out in the open and overtly. This is a result of completely untrammeled hypergamy, I think. Women don’t feel the need to restrain their statements, their remarks, their conduct or their treatment of others. Social and religious conventions and sanctions no longer constrain anything American women do. Even the most average Jane, 30 pounds overweight, sporting her muffin top and her junk-in-the-trunk, a 3/10 on a good day, thinks she can do anything she want with anyone she wants, anywhere she wants. She believes she has the absolute right to say anything she wants, to whomever she wants, wherever and whenever she wants.
It’s not noticed or commented upon because, I think, (1) feminism is so shot through all of society that no one would ever call this what it is: unrestrained hypergamous women acting like animals; and (2) most people don’t want to know the truth. Feminism has so skewed the social order that any attempts to restrain what it wants is “sexist” and men trying to keep women from being “true to themselves”. Any questioning of the social order in which women get whatever they want is met with shaming and ridicule.
@Brendan 2:59 PM
Yes, it seems I was off-base. Strictly speaking, that sort of stuff indeed does not attract, certainly not in the early stages of courtship. Now that I thought about it a bit more, I’d add it never increases the sexual attraction on the women’s part. What I’d say is that a woman may get into a situation where she’s looking for signs of commitment in a relationship in order to feel more secure – when she’s pregnant or has small children, for example, or she’s economically dependent on her mate. But yes, strictly speaking it won’t make him seem more attractive sexually, it’ll only make him seem like a better mate (for the time being, of course). Needless to say, making a woman feel more secure in a relationship is a pretty bad idea if she’s not in such a situation in the first place.
I’m sure you meant to respond to a different comment of mine in the second half, but anyway: I think willful male self-deception and ignorance may play a part as well, but a rather limited one. First of all, self-deception seems to be more of a female than male trait when it comes to gender relations. Men don’t have hamsters after all. When you’re already deeply invested in a woman in one way or another, I can imagine it’s difficult to digest the truth about female hypergamy due to all the wishful thinking that developed. But subconscious self-deception? Doesn’t seem realistic to me. Female hypergamy isn’t the most pleasant thing a beta male can hear about, but would most men see it as ’evil’? I doubt that. I don’t think it’d make them see their female relatives in a vastly different light. Men normally face harsher truths in life. What WOULD happen is beta males rejecting the idea of marriage or LTR en masse after learning about female hypergamy. Needless to say, pretty much everyone else in society is deeply invested in them NOT doing that, for reasons I’m sure don’t need explaining here.
What IS going on, I think, and has been pretty much accepted as self-evident truth in this corner of the Internet, is that many men have become cognitively and psychologically resistant to accepting basic facts about female sexuality due to the relentless betaization, emasculation and manipulation they have undergone at the hands of their feminist overlords, be they self-proclaimed or de facto feminists (i.e. tradcons). This may count as self-deception, of course. But the problem in this case isn’t the self-deception itself but the manipulators responsible for the brainwashing which causes the self-deception in the first place.
Pingback: Who is a feminist? « Thinking 8