Threatpoint

When discussing the topic of changes in divorce law we typically talk about divorce theft and how this causes men to be understandably hesitant to marry, as well as the impact it has on men and their children who are directly victimized by the new regime.  However, divorce “reform” is as much about manipulating the power balance within marriage as it is about ensuring that women can frivolously divorce while collecting cash and prizes.  Economists Stevenson and Wolfers describe this in their paper Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: Divorce Laws and Family Distress (emphasis mine).

In the literature on the economics of the family there has been growing consensus on the need to take bargaining and distribution within marriage seriously. Such models of the family rely on a threat point to determine distribution within the household. The switch to a unilateral divorce regime redistributes power in a marriage, giving power to the person who wants out, and reducing the power previously held by the partner interested in preserving the marriage.

They aren’t under any illusions;  divorce reform is all about redistributing power from the spouse who wants to honor the marriage vows to the spouse who doesn’t.  This is one of the best kept open secrets I’ve ever encountered.

Also, don’t be confused by the gender neutral terms;  women are overwhelmingly the ones who don’t want to honor the marriage vows.  This is confirmed by the academic study “These Boots Are Made for Walking”:  Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women and the data on the age of wife at the time of divorce. Putting this together, divorce reform is all about redistributing power from the husband who wants to honor the marriage vows to the wife who doesn’t.

Stevenson and Wolfers are very open about this.  They of course present it through the feminist narrative that husbands are evil brutes which must be tamed, lest they abuse, murder, or drive their wife to suicide:

Examining state panel data on suicide, domestic violence, and murder, we find a striking decline in female suicide and domestic violence rates arising from the advent of unilateral divorce. Total female suicide declined by around 20% in the long run in states that adopted unilateral divorce. We believe that this decline is a robust and well-identified result, and timing evidence speaks clearly to this interpretation. There is no discernable effect on male suicide.

They clarify that this isn’t about women previously being “trapped” in abusive or dangerous marriages, but about how putting all husbands in fear of divorce might tame potentially abusive husbands (emphasis mine):

To see how divorce laws affect the external threat point, note that prior to unilateral divorce, a partner wishing to dissolve the marriage could leave without their spouse’s consent.  However, in such a situation, a legal divorce is not granted and, as such, the right to remarry is forfeited. Under unilateral divorce the value of the exit threat increases for the unsatisfied spouse, as the right to remarry is retained regardless of the position of one’s spouse. Thus, the exit threat model predicts that changes in divorce regimes will have real effects. If the divorce threat is sufficiently credible, it may directly affect intrafamily bargaining outcomes without the option ever being exercised.

Indeed they found that this was in fact the case.  They close their conclusion with:

The mechanism examined in this paper is a change in divorce regime and we interpret the evidence collected here as an empirical endorsement of the idea that family law provides a potent tool for affecting outcomes within families.

Again, they weren’t looking for evidence that divorce reform allowed wives to escape abusive husbands.  They were looking for and found that changes in family law served as a sort of marital sword of Damocles over husbands, causing them bend to their wife’s will out of fear of unilateral divorce.

In this context we can understand how cases like John’s and walking in hell while not the standard outcome of “divorce reform” also aren’t unintended consequences.  They serve as a warning to keep all husbands in line.

It is also worth noting that while academic studies couch this in the feminist narrative of checking what would otherwise be an army of sadistic husbands, this is really about husbands living in fear of their wife becoming unhaaaapy and dynamiting the family.  Only a fool hasn’t noticed that one of the most prominent themes in women’s entertainment is the concept of the empowerment women experience from frivolously divorcing.

Christians are actively reinforcing these legal and social changes by abandoning the biblical view of marriage in favor of the feminist view.  While the old paradigm was that a woman who couldn’t keep a man was a failure, feminists and Christians have turned this around and now view a husband who can’t keep his wife haaapy as a failure.  At the same time, the wife who kicks the father of her children out of the house is now seen as heroic.  This idea that husbands must grovel to their wives to stave off her ever threatened unhaaapyness is so ingrained in modern Christian thought that there was no meaningful backlash amongst Christians when this was made the central plot of the movie Fireproof.  Tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of Christians watched the movie and delighted in its presumed Christian message on marriage. We saw proof of the same thing with the women of christianforums.com going on for over 40 pages passionately arguing the morality of frivolous divorce.  Shortly after I pointed this out, the moderators of the forum enacted a new rule forbidding members from writing anything in judgment of frivolous divorce (emphasis mine):

Please remember that when someone shares a personal experience it is not up for judgement. Divorce is always a last resort, but we will not allow judgement of those who do make that choice.

This abandonment of the biblical concept of marriage in exchange for the feminist view of marriage doesn’t just impact the marriages of Christians.  Christianity is the driving moral force in the west, and as such their turning their backs on biblical marriage has given all women in the west moral cover to use the new legal threatpoint against their husbands to maximum effect.  Husbands are hemmed in by all sides cheerleading his wife to frivolously divorce if he fails to make her happy.

Yet despite the millions of innocent men and their children who have been ground up by the the machinery needed to keep husbands in their place, wives now report less marital happiness (Source: National Marriage Project,  P 67 Fig 4):

We are feeding millions of innocent men and children to the machinery of divorce to keep this threatpoint in place, and not even making women happier with their marriages.

Sword of Damocles image information.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Church Apathy About Divorce, Domestic Violence, Foolishness, Marriage, Scientific Paper, Threatpoint. Bookmark the permalink.

161 Responses to Threatpoint

  1. The Rigorist says:

    I had posted this in the prior topic’s comments but, as it directly applies to this one ( and not the last), I’m going to be pushy and post it here too.

    At what point do we stop grousing about how Marriage 2.0 is worthless and dangerous and accept that the magic is gone, that “marriage” means “bad business deal for men”?

    I’m not talking about MGTOW … exactly. Let’s say a man has gone his own way and meets a woman who ( pure fantasy, I know ) wants something along the lines of Marriage 1.0? What do we have to do that? I mean apart from dowries. Family law is a sham and a scam so what is there in contract law that we can use?

    Just to kick it off, I’ll suggest a couple of things.

    How about we legalize prostitution so that a man and a woman can make a contract for sexual fidelity? This, while wild, would be much much easier than fixing Marriage 2.0.

    To replace the church, how about an HMO that does nothing except marital counselling? Couples buy in to get regular periodic relationship support. Success rates would be independantly auditable.

    I’ve given these about 5 minutes of consideration, long enough to think of 2 things and type them. I’m not wedded to them ( *heh* ).

  2. zorroprimo says:

    Truly brilliant post!

  3. StewartG says:

    No-fault divorce reduces suicide?

  4. deti says:

    The important points are in these two paragraphs:

    “Such models of the family rely on a threat point to determine distribution within the household. The switch to a unilateral divorce regime redistributes power in a marriage, giving power to the person who wants out, and reducing the power previously held by the partner interested in preserving the marriage.”

    and

    “They were looking for and found that changes in family law served as a sort of marital sword of Damocles over husbands, causing them bend to their wife’s will out of fear of unilateral divorce.”

    The first was making women more equal in marriage. Wives now are in a position to threaten their husbands, And that’s why they’re unhappy.

    The second amplifies why women are unhappier in marriage. They are married to men who are fearful of having their lives destroyed, their children taken from them and their assets squandered. They give in to wives, hoping to make them happy. Nothing irritates a wife more than her husband overtly trying to make her happy.

    Husbands giving in, caving in, capitulating, ceding power and authority in their marriages. Husbands lacking confidence in the strength of their marriages and not showing dominance. It’s no wonder wives are unhappier. They got what they wanted and found out it didn’t make them happy.

  5. CL says:

    There is no discernable effect on male suicide.

    I guess they didn’t mention the higher rates of male suicide post-divorce and financial ruination.

  6. Bwana Simba says:

    Speaking of “men should grovel before women” advice, anyone here had the misfortune of reading the Every Young Man’s Battle and Every Man’s Battle series? Those books included such wonderful advice such as you shouldn’t have sex outside of marriage because you are supposed to be loving your wife and other women more than you love yourself and heart warming stories of men who literally became slaves to their women. One dude cheated on his wife, so he was advised to seek her forgiveness by, among other things:
    a) shave his head
    b) beg her forgiveness in public
    c) give her control over all their finances

    Someone should do a review of the more well known/ published books offering advice to Christian men from such male friendly publishers as Focus on the Family.

  7. StewartG says:

    Men more likely to commit suicide after divorce, study finds:

    Divorce, however, doesnt seem to lead more women to commit suicide a surprising finding considering the popular wisdom that women suffer more than men after a divorce, according to the study, published this week in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

    We now need to look at the possibility that divorce negatively affects men, too, said study author Augustine Kposowa, Ph.D.,

  8. deti says:

    One of the principal authors of the “Every Man’s Battle” series is Stephen Arterburn. He is currently married to his third wife. Arterburn has said that he and his second wife divorced “after 20 difficult years of marriage” and that he did all he could to save his second marriage.

  9. Brendan says:

    Speaking of “men should grovel before women” advice, anyone here had the misfortune of reading the Every Young Man’s Battle and Every Man’s Battle series? Those books included such wonderful advice such as you shouldn’t have sex outside of marriage because you are supposed to be loving your wife and other women more than you love yourself and heart warming stories of men who literally became slaves to their women. One dude cheated on his wife, so he was advised to seek her forgiveness by, among other things:
    a) shave his head
    b) beg her forgiveness in public
    c) give her control over all their finances

    Someone should do a review of the more well known/ published books offering advice to Christian men from such male friendly publishers as Focus on the Family.

    Came across these in my own therapy during the divorce. I dropped a therapist over them. It’s absolutely man-hating literature of the first order. Absolute man-hatred, written by men who hate themselves *and* who hate other men, in the name of God. Sick. Sick. Sick. May they burn eternally in hell.

  10. Ballista_GTOW says:

    Someone should do a review of the more well known/ published books offering advice to Christian men from such male friendly publishers as Focus on the Family.

    Actually, for those that have looked into the matter, it is beyond all doubt that Focus on the Family is a predominant feminist organization. In going to church and listening to enough sermons and going to enough Sunday school lessons, one will know that Focus on the Family is a predominant driving force for the provision of material about marriage, family, and raising children.

    This leads to the correct conclusion that, given the time Focus on the Family has been in existence, that a majority of other works are influenced in some way by them, and Focus on the Family has driven the current narrative on these topics. In other words, Glenn Stanton wouldn’t be allowed to write what he does under that banner without the approval of the group and James Dobson (aka King Mangina in some circles). And you wouldn’t find much disagreement about other works such as Fireproof from anyone in this group.

    Of course, there are feminists that have their panties in a wad over this group regarding certain other things it says and does (most notably abortion). But in reality, the current narrative within religious feminist circles is nothing different than what comes out of the secular feminist circles – in other words, their goals are one in the same. In listening to the Focus on the Family shows and reading the materials (as I have, unfortunately, over the last few years), one will hear that husbands are vile, base and sadistic and need to be held accountable and controlled to be good well-behaved slaves to their wives and church. One will hear that wives are noble and blameless and need to be protected so they may flourish. One will hear that daughters need uplifted in their self-esteem so their noble, blameless nature may be preserved. One will hear that sons need to be controlled and disciplined so they may be broken of their masculinity and self-worth. One will hear that all single women, even the sluts, are tragedies because single men (and often the narrative includes “the first single man they fall in love with”) will not marry them. One will hear that single men are foul, won’t grow up, won’t man up, are threats to the wives in their midst, and won’t marry the first single woman that they come across that happens to fall in love with them.

    What Focus on the Family puts out in their media is nothing different than what Dalrock has already covered in writing about gender relations on this blog, or what others have covered in the manosphere. In other words, “move along, there’s nothing to see here”.

  11. 7man says:

    This is a brilliant explanation of why the divorce system is working just like it was intended. The system had been designed this way and did not just happen. There has been a concerted effort to return the world to a feudal system. In order for the ruling class to accomplish this, the leader (father) needed to be removed from the family or be stripped of his leadership role. Then the women will easily follow the changing culture and the schools can indoctrinate the children. This further erodes the traditional family order in the next generation because boys grow up without having learned masculinity from their fathers. (Of course women will not be happy either, yet continue to seek to fix their unhapiness by stroving for ever more empowerment.)

    To see who is behind this, follow the money. Who is really running the world these days? The banks get the bailouts and the oil industry reaps huge profits.

    I think the destruction of the family was set in motion in 1910 at Jekyll Island (that is where the Federal Reserve and the modern banking system was planned).

    David Rockefeller at a Bilderberg Group meeting in June 1991: ”We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an INTERNATIONAL ELITE and WORLD BANKERS is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

    There is some controversy surrounding the accuracy of this quote, although it appears that it hs not been publicly denied.” from Dishonest Money by Joseph Plummer

  12. slwerner says:

    “Husbands are hemmed in by all sides cheerleading his wife to frivolously divorce if he fails to make her happy.”

    Seems some guys never really have a chance of reaching that magic goal of making their wives happy (subject matter previously addressed by Dalrock, but with a new HuffPostbit today):

    “In their book “How Not to Marry the Wrong Guy,” co-authors Anne Milford and Jennifer Gauvain found through their research that a shocking 30 percent of divorcees said they knew they were marrying the wrong man on their wedding day.”

  13. Bwana Simba says:

    @Ballista-GTOW:
    I was actually being sarcastic on the “male-friendly” line. I know all too well the horrors of Focus on the Family. Their posters are in every church I have ever been too, endorsing the likes of Fireproof, Courageous and other man hating drivel.

  14. The Continental Op says:

    Dobson is Dr. Mangina. Just listening to him you can tell he’s talking to women and whipped men.

  15. will says:

    I was given the book: “Every man’s battle” to cure my pornography addiction. I didn’t know it is a trojan horse for emasculation until now. Now that I think of it I don’t think my christian friend is very masculine.

  16. InT says:

    It’s clear that their goal is to eliminate marriage. I recently interacted with a feminist who cackled with glee that marriage was being dismantled.

    It’s also the only way that the rhetoric and the numbers make sense.

    Ah, well. Won’t be marrying anytime soon.

  17. jso says:

    if marriage is so dangerous for men, I would suggest that they all stop getting married. across the board, no matter how much you might trust a woman, there’s just no reason to face that kind of risk.

  18. Prof. Woland says:

    The sooner we make shared equal custody the default in divorce the sooner we will change this outdated bigoted nonsense. While not a panacea, it will solve many of the problems of no-fault divorce without having to return to the litigious and gotcha nature of at-fault divorce. Feminists hate it because they get hit twice with the same stone. First, they are forced to share custody. No matter what they will tell you about men doing their fair share raising the kids, they really don’t mean it. They would much rather always have the power to take custody if they choose and have the men pay. The second half is that women will not be able to hide behind the children as an excuse for not pulling their weight financially. If they only get 50% custody then they can spend the time when they are not with the children working. This will have an equalizing effect naturally bringing down alimony payments (reforming alimony is something which needs to happen as well). Expect women to piss and moan till the cows come home on this one but in a day and age where women can work outside the home, own property and vote, it is ridiculous that divorce laws are still rooted in the 1950s.

  19. The Everyman’s books are painfully gyncentric Christianity.

    It is a bit awkward to say that, for example, Focus on the family is no different than feminism. Before I suffer an attack, Im not in any way defending them, the church, or Christian white knight men and gynocentric evangelical feminists in general. I will flat out say that the type of feminism in the church is far more insidious than the secular “Feministing” type feminism. Its simply much worse, more subversive, and actually doing way more harm than (fill in number) wave feminism.

    Part of the problem is use of the word feminism when confronting the evangelical feminists, and especially when trying to enlighten their useful idiots, the white knights. As has been written here, the useful idiot white knights have layers of denial of feminism in the church, and the first layer is the simple incongruous seeming of the word feminist when used in Christian context, I mean heck no these gals are not feminists they are IN CHURCH for petes sake. Thats about as deep as the white knight thinks anyway, never mind any facts. My point isnt one of these “lets find a new term” sort of pitches, those can be annoying and a waste of time while people then get too clever by half brainstorming it. Its just to state this, and state it again and if you find yourself engaged with a white knight in conversation, the word feminist is likely all the dude needs to glaze over and ignore you.

    The power behind the threat point starts with the orgy of materialism that is today’s wedding biz. That a father dump 10 grand on a cheap wedding, and people gather from around the country to pay homage to a woman and nudge and wink with the guy that he is soooooooooo lucky is the norm. HE is LUCKY? Well, OK yea, I see that, I feel lucky to have my wife….thats just a statement though, not some orbit altering fact. The wife is the one who, in most cases and in terms of livelihood and likelihood for a good one, kids, a home, all that, SHE is the lucky one and historically that was recognized.

    Now, its a day of orgiastic overdoing followed by a life under a hair trigger guillotine.

    The dystopian future this could foretell is maybe why I so enjoy post apocalyptic fiction, where the men are men again, and the women are accepting and appreciating protection. It may be one of the last genres where it hasnt been corrupted by female centric writing. I mention this because women have written themselves into fictional awesomeness and they believe their own musings….hence, keep the man under threat

  20. TFH says:

    The sooner we make shared equal custody the default in divorce the sooner we will change this outdated bigoted nonsense.

    You seem to think this would ever happen in a society where women have the right to vote.

    When women have the right to vote, divorce laws can only move in one direction.

  21. j24601 says:

    ‘Hope for the best, prepare for the worst’. If you are male: never marry, REPEAT, never marry.

  22. greyghost says:

    This article explains plainly why you have married men that are MRA’s and why nearly all married men do not recommend any man get married. I wouldn’t wish marriage on any man that I didn’t personally hate and wish ill will on.

  23. Ballista_GTOW says:

    One thing I have found is that any deception in and of itself is insidious. The fact that feminism exists in Christian circles (*) is one that is

    not ever imagined. This is simply for the fact that the majority of those in Christian circles are lazy and do not think on

    things that they encounter both within the church and within society. I tend to observe, in my opinion, that most people define feminism (and the “manosphere” as well) not by the goals intended, but by the expression of them and methods used to obtain them.

    As I’ve stated in other posts, the feminism that exists in Christian circles is no different than the secular “Feministing”

    feminism, save for the abortion issue. In other words, take abortion off the table and the end goals are in lockstep for

    both camps. The major divergence is in the expression of these goals. Christian feminism seeks to express those

    goals couched in religious terms, and to subvert the religious machinery of the churches (and parachurches) in order to

    accomplish these things. Secular feminism uses terms reflective of the “unsaved world”, using the legal system, the school

    system, and the media at-large to accomplish their goals. Deception is common in this area, too. This is proven in the fact that many of the Christian feminists have chosen to distance themselves from the name, while holding to the same principles as feminism.

    Yet there is ample proof in society that this exists. Two cases come to mind. The furor over Rush Limbaugh’s recent comments regarding

    contraception are reflective of secular feminism. This is of no surprise to those that are familiar with the issue.
    However there was, according to this

    article, 43 sponsors that decided to stop advertising on his show. Now, nothing ever happens in a vacuum. It would be

    foolish to assume that these sponsors had no awareness of what they were advertising on. Rush Limbaugh is a partisan

    Republican who has a track record of saying what could be termed “incendiary” things to the left-wing. He primarily has

    partisan Republicans that routinely listen to this show. Usually it would be good to assume that the advertisers

    discontinued their ad buys based on complaints from the audience that they were targeting. This would bring the conclusion

    that Republicans were complaining, and given that a majority of those are regular church attenders, these were

    Christian Republicans complaining.

    Now another example that came to mind was the selection of Sarah Palin as vice-president. While that was 2008 and I’m unsure

    of what was written in this regard, much could be concluded by the fact that a majority supported her nomination, and to my

    recollection very little was written or said from the religious camps about the Biblical contradiction that was presented by

    her being in the race. This goes to care of her family, the example set by both her and her husband (basically a proven

    mangina and stay-at-home dad), and the questions of Christian order and hierarchy (if a woman can not be head pastor of a

    church, how much more so a leader of a nation). It was interesting for me to be able to listen to the rationalization

    hamsters of the Christian women (even the ones old enough to be my grandmother!) go into overdrive to rationalize supporting

    her despite all of these things, and to see all the Christian men fall into line like the well-behaved slaves they were

    trained to be. Indeed, Sarah Palin is the consumate Christian feminist, and the McCain campaign received the support that it

    did despite the high negative poll numbers because these voters were nothing different than her.

    (*) – I have fundamental disagreements with the definition given on this site, primarily the fact that feminism has nothing to do with equality.

  24. ray says:

    “Shortly after I pointed this out, the moderators of the forum enacted a new rule forbidding members from writing anything in judgment of frivolous divorce (emphasis mine):”

    compare this reaction — silencing of dissent and infliction of necessary “rules” to solve the Bad Male Problem

    Bad Male: “says truth”

    abort abort abort

    family court/law, divorce/civil proceedings, criminal “law” — whether from left of right, the reaction to a male expressing maleness is banning and censorship and forbidding (but not banning or forbidding female misbehavior)

    “threatpoint” is right, women are experts at using kids to hurt and destroy guys who displease them in any way — theyll keep boys and men apart to satisfy the most trivial vengeance and spite, and rationalize it a zillion ways in their noggins

    never again will this bullshit be allowed to go down

    a gratifing article, desperately needed by america and and the west

    finally a REAL Promise Keeper gathering of ACTUAL ohristian men, properly pissed and cogently voluble at their anti-God, anti-biblical, anti-masculine nations

    the truth doesnt require a baseball stadium or ad space

  25. Alarm says:

    Joint custody and 50/50 living arrangements increased when the presumtion for joint custody was strengthened in the early nineties or something. That presumtion was weakened after feminist pressure in 2006 and custody disputes have therefor increased, but not enough to break the trend.

    Google translate this page.

    http://www.scb.se/statistik/_publikationer/LE0001_2009K04_TI_02_A05TI0904.pdf

    In 2006 close to 30 % of children with seperated parents had 50/50 living arrangements. Divorces are in slight decline (or not growing as fast), but that can also be due to people marrying and having children later.

    One interesting thing is that the proportion of single mothers who have never lived with the father has only increased from 1 to 5 % in 100 years. And the proprtion of kids who have lost a parent by death has decreased from 18 to 3.

  26. It is all well and good to warn others that they should not get married, or that they should approach marriage very cautiously, but the fact is most people think that THEIR marriage will be different. They’re not going to be like everyone else. They know what they’re doing. Things will be fine for them. It’s not until after they get married, and experience the problems themselves, that they suddenly realize they should have heeded the warnings.

    There are some things that are just impossible to believe until they happen to you. I think this is one of them. Yes, there are some who see their friends destroyed and realize they need to be careful. But by and large, I think people believe that marriage is good, that women are good, and that they’re not going to have those problems.

    Do you remember all those fairy tales you read as a kid, where Prince Charming married the Princess and they lived happily ever after? I think that a whole lot of men actually believe them. They think, overall, that’s how it works.

  27. ukfred says:

    The one thing that will prevent a male marriage strike is the fact that men who are Christian are forbidden to have sex outside of marriage and there is no way that most men will be able to deny their sex drive for ever.

    Women claim to be the more empathetic gender, but it bears asking where is that empathy when the evidence, from the Terman Longitudinal Study, is that the children of a divorce have a life expectancy of 5 years less than the children born in equivalent circumstances except that their parents remain married. So these women are condemning their own children to a curtailed life expectancy and they are empathetic?

    And finally on the statisic that there is no effect on male suicides. Is this no effect on the proportion of men who commit suicide after divorce, or the absolute number of men who commit suicide after divorce has not increased,. If the former, what confidence leevel has been used, because youcan arrive at a conclusion that there is no statically significant difference by setting the confidence levels appropriately to get the answer you want.

    Feminism is another variant of socialism, and as such one must be prepared for underhand tricks at all times from feminists. The actions of the moderators on Christian Forums are ideal illustrations of this.

  28. @ukfred says: “The one thing that will prevent a male marriage strike is the fact that men who are Christian are forbidden to have sex outside of marriage and there is no way that most men will be able to deny their sex drive for ever.”

    I quite agree. But I think this is another area where men are being misled. There are a great many single Christian men out there who think that, if they can just get married, they will finally enjoy an active sex life. It is possible that might happen – if they’re lucky. The fact is, women know how much power sex gives them, and many of them won’t hesitate to use it as a weapon, or a tool to control their husbands. Nor do they have any qualms about cutting off their husband entirely. (Sure, they want sex. But not necessarily with their husband.)

    How many men actually have regular sex with their wives? How many men instead have to get by on whatever their wife feels like giving them – or are cut off altogether? Sure, you can use Game to help matters. In fact, Game is indespensible. But how many men, BEFORE they are married, even know that they’re going to have to Game their wives in order to get sex? For that matter, how many men even know what Game is?

    If men are really going into marriage thinking “I’m going to get lots of sex now” – and I suspect they are – then they are in for a rude awakening. That’s not reality.

  29. bskillet81 says:

    @Ballista

    I have been thinking of doing more articles on my blog on Focus on the Family, but I don’t know where to start with problematic materials etc. Where would you recommend I start reading?

  30. Brendan says:

    It is all well and good to warn others that they should not get married, or that they should approach marriage very cautiously, but the fact is most people think that THEIR marriage will be different. They’re not going to be like everyone else. They know what they’re doing. Things will be fine for them. It’s not until after they get married, and experience the problems themselves, that they suddenly realize they should have heeded the warnings.

    This is very true. It’s also true in other areas of life — people generally minimize the import of all kinds of warnings and admonitions in all areas of life, preferring to think that they are simply different, and that this isn’t really a risk. All we can do is keep getting the message out, because while most won’t listen, some will.

    How many men actually have regular sex with their wives? How many men instead have to get by on whatever their wife feels like giving them – or are cut off altogether? Sure, you can use Game to help matters. In fact, Game is indespensible. But how many men, BEFORE they are married, even know that they’re going to have to Game their wives in order to get sex? For that matter, how many men even know what Game is?

    If men are really going into marriage thinking “I’m going to get lots of sex now” – and I suspect they are – then they are in for a rude awakening. That’s not reality.

    This is very true as well. I think that men need to realize that, in 2012, a marriage is a certified LTR. That is — you need to keep being the exciting and sexy boyfriend for that relationship to continue. Just because it’s called “marriage” doesn’t really make it very different from a LTR in terms of what you need to do to keep the relationship going (including regular sex). Expectations have changed, dramatically. That’s the case for Christian marriages as much as it for non-Christian ones, because we are all living in the same culture, and that culture has shaped expectations.

  31. bskillet
    Sign up for their email marriage newsletter, it will give you at least one fodder per week

  32. freebird says:

    Ironic how the followers of the god of the moon enforce the patriarchal order, yet Christians call themselves children of the light.

    They could use more ‘reflection.’

  33. bobsutan says:

    I wish they’d just make it so that whoever files for no-fault divorce in doing so forfiets any alimony and agrees to forfiet custody rights. What would such a world look like? The main thing I’m getting at here is treating divorce as a form of child abuse/neglect because of the damage it typically inflicts long-term.

  34. SC says:

    “The one thing that will prevent a male marriage strike is the fact that men who are Christian are forbidden to have sex outside of marriage and there is no way that most men will be able to deny their sex drive for ever.”

    I think that for a way to do this we need to look at what the Japanese herbivore men are doing (minus their sometimes feminine behavior). They have turned their country upside down within a decade or so by refusing most exclusively male social demands, including marriage. They seem to have stopped participating in traditionally male activities that support their society (much like Feminism does, without the hatred). It’s gotten so bad for men there that women are divorcing men just for retiring from their jobs; they just don’t want their husbands to retire and be home. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retired_husband_syndrome

    It’s clear to me that women see commitment as conditional upon their emotional state instead of trying to make their emotional states subject to their commitments. Since they want this, why promote marriage today, even Christian marriage? This culture not only dooms, but actually drives over half of them to failure. Even if a woman believes in it today, through the influence of friends, feminist culture, TV, or through financial independence, she could easily just change her mind (a woman’s prerogative?) and “feel” totally justified. Their commitment is always only based on how they felt at the moment, turning the commitment into a ritual of nostalgia. So why continue to talk to women about the morals of marriage when current emotional state is their foundation, not morality?

    How can we encourage more men to stop participating in this nonsense unless or until women regain some sense of moral groundedness?

    Sorry for the rant. :)

  35. Ballista_GTOW says:

    @bskillet81
    I have been thinking of doing more articles on my blog on Focus on the Family, but I don’t know where to start with problematic materials etc. Where would you recommend I start reading?

    I second the suggestion regarding signing up for their e-mail newsletter. Also, look into exposing yourself to their material (focusonthefamily com, boundless org, thrivingfamily com). As was stated, something will fall in your lap pretty regularly. If not something they say on their radio show or write themselves, their “recommended books” they advertise will be possible avenues for material (anything “for women” or “for men” seems to be a dead giveaway). Then there’s always classic Dobson.

    As with any good lie, there is always a good amount of truth in it, which makes it deceptive. Usually listen and you’ll find something, like Glenn Stanton or Fireproof. This is usually shown in how people buy into these things so much, like the book “Love Dare” that was marketed with Fireproof or “The Resolution” (one for men, one for women) was marketed with Courageous.

  36. ukfred says:

    @Jonathan Cooper
    This is where there is another aspect of the double standard in churches comes in. How frequently does a Christian man remind his wife about her responsibilities under 1 Corinthians 7 to provide sex to her husband. There has also been a debate on themarriagebed.com about whether refusing to provide sufficient sex is a matter of failing to keep your marriage vows.

  37. Legion says:

    OT: More newa iof women hitting the Wall:

    http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/008584.html

    Technology will not help women become fertile when they age out of it. The problems associated with changing that aren’t even completely grasped yet. We should have a Mens Birth Control Pill long before that.

  38. @ukfred: “There has also been a debate on themarriagebed.com about whether refusing to provide sufficient sex is a matter of failing to keep your marriage vows.”

    The apostle Paul speaks of it in terms of fraud. 1 Corinthians 7:5: “Defraud ye not one the other…” Fraud carries with it the idea that you were promised one thing and then given something else. That certainly fits in this context. Single men everywhere believe that, when they get married, they will also get sex. When their wives turn the tables on them and cut them off, one could certainly argue that they have been defrauded – they were promised one thing, and given something else. (Very few women will ever say, BEFORE the marriage, “Oh no, of course I’m not going to have sex with you after we’re married. That’s crazy talk.” They will lead men to think all will be well, and then not deliver. Not all women do this, of course. But, as Dalrock’s post pointed out, a rather large percentage of men are quite unhappy with their marriage.)

    Yes, preaching on women’s responsibilities is a great idea. I have seen it done. The women revolt and the pastor is quickly fired. I have heard supposedly Christian women flatly say they will never, ever, ever submit to their husbands or obey what the Bible has to say about their role. The problem is not a lack of knowledge; it is a lack of obedience. As long as civil and criminal law is on their side they will continue to behave as they do. After all, they have every incentive to rebel. Who is going to stop them? The church? The government? The media?

  39. Ballista_GTOW says:

    (slightly OT, but this does denote a “power balance” issue in marriage)
    @ukfred
    How frequently does a Christian man remind his wife about her responsibilities under 1 Corinthians 7 to provide sex to her husband.

    Or rather in the current church environment, does he have the right to do this without being seen a monster. Feminism creeps in again, that says a woman has a perfect right to unilaterally refuse sex at any and all times, even if she is refusing her own husband. This is naturally because of the standard assumptions of men and women that carry the day today in feminist thought.

    There has also been a debate on themarriagebed.com about whether refusing to provide sufficient sex is a matter of failing to keep your marriage vows.

    The thought that this is even an issue given general understanding is an indicator of the signs of the times with regards to how destroyed marriage is in current society. The interesting thing I read in my studies of Scripture as well as the older commentaries is that regular sex is an obligation that is coupled with marriage for both parties. You can find this in a few spots other than 1 Cor 7:3-5, but it is hard to come up with anything different given a sober reading of this Scripture (KJV):

    “Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.”

    The Greek word behind the word “due”, ophileo, indicates a debt or obligation. The translators choice of the word “defraud” also indicates this. Note, also, the reason given: That one not be tempted. It can be legitimately easy to conclude that adultery and even regular porn use is a sin on the part of the other party (as well) if it is a result of the lack of provision of sex. Reflections of love for the other party would be a factor in a number of cases as to whether “mutual consent” is given for abstinence.

    While it can be hard to denote societal marriage practice in the past regarding this matter, there are noted examples within those commentaries. Clarke writes (1 Cor 7:3):

    Clarke (1 Cor 7:3):
    Some have rendered the words, not unaptly, the matrimonial debt, or conjugal duty – that which a wife owes to her husband, and the husband to his wife; and which they must take care mutually to render, else alienation of affection will be the infallible consequence, and this in numberless instances has led to adulterous connections. In such cases the wife has to blame herself for the infidelity of her husband, and the husband for that of his wife.

    Jewish practice denotes the issue as well. Gill in his commentary quotes them:
    “a woman that restrains her husband from the use of the bed, is called rebellious; and when they ask her why she rebels, if she says, because it is loathsome to me, and I cannot lie with him; then they oblige him to put her away directly, without her dowry; and she may not take any thing of her husband’s, not even her shoe strings, nor her hair lace; but what her husband did not give her she may take, and go away: and if she rebels against her husband, on purpose to afflict him, and she does to him so or so, and despises him, they send to her from the sanhedrim, and say to her, know thou, that if thou continuest in thy rebellion, thou shalt not prosper? and after that they publish her in the synagogues and schools four weeks, one after another, and say, such an one has rebelled against her husband; and after the publication, they send and say to her, if thou continuest in thy rebellion, thou wilt lose thy dowry; and they appoint her twelve months, and she has no sustenance from her husband all that time; and she goes out at the end of twelve months without her dowry, and returns everything that is her husband’s.”

    Unfortunately, there is a joke among men that I hear all over society that finds too much traction for those that hear it, even in the church. It indicates that sexual access in marriage would be an issue that would need addressed if marriage with “Christian moral values”. It can be stated like this: “How do you stop having sex regularly, not by choice? A: Get married.” It’s an unfortunate shift of practice that general wisdom of today states that the alphas have sex while single and that marriage brings a sentence of forced celibacy.

  40. deti says:

    JOnathan Cooper:

    I’ve been married almost 16 years. Last year I told my wife I expect sex at reasonable intervals. I also said that when I advance for sex I expect not to be turned down frequently. I told her that if she starts denying me on a regular basis I’ll consider it marital abandonment and thus grounds for divorce.

    Sex is a marital obligation.

    As for pastors preaching about women’s marital obligations: Yep. The pastor preaches it, the women make shrill complaints to the pastor’s superiors and the various church committees. The pastor is fired or his life made a living hell until he’s rotated out.

    Women refusing to obey biblical commands is really nothing short of open rebellion. But no one is willing to confront it or put it down.

  41. ukfred says:

    @Jonathan Cooper
    @Ballista_GTOW

    I do not disagree with you at all. The problem lies with the feminisation of churches.

    The variant of the joke that I heard was “What food causes immediate and permanent cessation of a woman’s libido? Her own wedding cake.”

    But open rebellion by women on biblical teaching is everywhere. I have most recently seen it on Christian Forums where a woman said that she was getting a divorce from her husband and she did not care whther it was biblical or ot.

  42. Höllenhund says:

    @Brendan

    “people generally minimize the import of all kinds of warnings and admonitions in all areas of life, preferring to think that they are simply different, and that this isn’t really a risk. All we can do is keep getting the message out, because while most won’t listen, some will.”

    This has a simple evo psych explanation or so I’ve heard. This sort of behavior – irrational optimism – is a disadvantage in terms of personal survival because it’s likely to get you killed (by making you take irrational risks), but it maximizes one’s chances of reproduction and thus it benefits the survival of the species. It’s no wonder we see this type of behavior on behalf of both men and women.

  43. greyghost says:

    As long as aw omen has a choice to refuse to follow scripture she will refuse. That church is now a womans club for they are now dictating what scripture you will preach. Only a woman and a thug can truely believe they are christian in an environment like that.

  44. mjay says:

    I’m divorced and already have kids. I have a girlfriend who is the one I take out and socilaize with as a couple and another girlfriend who is married, who lives in a city i travel to often for business. When I am there we get together, spend the odd weekend together and have a great time.

    All this talk of “Marriage 1.0″ is ludicrous, as family law will dictate the terms of a divorce, regardless of the sentiments of the woman involved. The reality is that unless you want children and are a total screw up at talking to women, you have no reason whatsoever to get married.if you are a man. In fact, if you do, you put your freedom and your kids’ inheritance at risk and will likely end up with a hell of a lot less sex and affection than you’d get if you remained single.

    Stay single and enjoy life – it is brutal and short, and every moment of joy is precious and hard-won.

    Here’s a brief tutorial on a possible endpoint of marriage if you still don’t get it:

  45. Bwana Simba says:

    There is one way to keep a marriage under a man’s control. There is a way no one has brought up, but was believed in for a very long time throughout history. The pimp hand.

    Most truly abusive men (not the “abusive” kind that women always divorce), men who slap or even beat their wives do not usually get divorced. Their wives rarely, if ever turn on them, and will usually defend them to the end, and when they do leave they will go crawling right back. This is what Muslim men are taught to do, and look at how well they do at controlling their wives.

    [D: This isn't the answer, it is a feminist straw man.]

  46. ray says:

    coop – The problem is not a lack of knowledge; it is a lack of obedience.

    bingo

    theyre as snug cocooned in their churches as in their homes and societies, ruling and excluding whatever/whoever Offends

    the soft rebellion is no longer so covert; as you point out, no sector opposes them

  47. Johnycomelately says:

    Brilliant post once again, Brendan I hope you broke his nose, heh.

    In Prisoner’s Dilemma parlance the wife wins whether she cooperates or defects regardless of the husbands choices, whereas the husband only wins if the wife cooperates. Effectively this puts the husband in a lower legal caste.

    Discrimination? Change wife for white and husband for black and you’d have a shit storm.

  48. Only a woman and a thug can truely believe they are christian in an environment like that.
    ——————————-
    Thats a well stated fact

  49. Johnycomelately says:

    My very personal and anecdotal observation (so it could be bullshit) of my social circle shows that a significant percentage of the most marriageable men are eschewing marriage for the very reasons Dalrock expressed here.

    I wonder what effect this creates on the ‘good men’ shortage and assortive mating, given that if a proportion of the best marriage prospects (and it’s only a small percentage maybe 5% of the total eligible men) are not marrying, how does it filter down as women compete for a smaller eligible pool.

    Could 5% be creating this whole ‘man shortage’.

  50. Anonymous age 70 says:

    Johnny, the major fuel crisis back in the early 70’s involved a shortage less than 5%. Yes, 5% can cause this. But, over 5 years ago, a survey showed that 22% of young men said they would never marry under any conditions. And, there is no reason to doubt the percentage has gone up dramatically in that 5 years.

  51. Dalrock says:

    @Johnycomelately

    Could 5% be creating this whole ‘man shortage’.

    The right 5% could have a big impact, as Anon age 70 pointed out. What is interesting is the current freak out isn’t born out by any impressive numbers. What looks to be happening is just a much larger jump in a long term trend in women delaying marriage. What the stats don’t/can’t tell us is how much of the group of late 20 somethings and early 30 something unmarried women are that way by choice (still trying to delay marriage), or because of a true shortage. If they wait out the clock too long the former could become the latter anyway. Add to that their male peers who didn’t get the signal to work to become a provider, and there are indicators there might be more to come.

    This is all speculation since the data we would need simply isn’t available, but it does seem like the current crop of marriage delayers are pushing their luck.

  52. Pingback: Father Knows Best: Orthodox Edition « Patriactionary

  53. Pingback: Capitalism is for Girls « Grit Artisan

  54. an observer says:

    Heads up Dalrock,

    Whilst we may take for granted an understanding of the basic concepts discussed here, divorce theft and female culpability is still a very foreign concept to most in the MSM. And sparks a torrent of hate and misandry.

    For example, here is one of Oz’s most reasonable relationship columnists mentioned you in mainstream media, suggesting that maybe men are worth listening to:

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/why-women-lose-the-dating-game-20120421-1xdn0.html

    She still comes across as somewhat reserved about the manosphere, as if hedging her bets.

    Not surprisingly, the feminist solipsists are soon out in force at any sign of cracks in the ideological wall:

    http://thewall.com.au/topics/71686-bettina-arndt-is-broken-and-needs-to-go-to

    If these reactions are typical, then it is little wonder that increasing numbers of women are single into their thirties. And honestly, I really have little sympathy for them. Given the lack of graciousness and me-first attitudes that I encounter(ed) from so many in their 20s, schaudenfreude at their current predicament is not to be unexpected.

  55. myth buster says:

    I watched Fireproof and came to a completely different conclusion than the OP. In Fireproof, it is clear that both spouses were in the wrong. The husband was neglecting his wife and cheating on her with pornography, while the wife was encouraging another man to court her and listening to toxic advice from her friends that she shouldn’t trust her husband’s change of heart. Both of them were cheating, and both were poisoning their marriage, and it took both of them repenting in order to save their marriage.

    And that brings up another point that non-Christians may not understand- you don’t have to be physically having sex with a paramour in order to be cheating on your spouse. Pornography is cheating, as is carrying on an emotional affair, especially when there is even a hint of suggestion that you intend to leave your spouse for another. Even if you wouldn’t actually leave your spouse, leading on a paramour is just as bad, because you become a death trap for his/her soul by encouraging thoughts of lust and envy.

    [D: Fireproof is straight up divorce porn. That you and millions of other Christians missed this should cause you great pause.]

  56. Joe Sheehy says:

    “And that brings up another point that non-Christians may not understand- you don’t have to be physically having sex with a paramour in order to be cheating on your spouse.”

    You’re confusing adultery as a sin with adultery that counts as a valid reason for putting away of the husband or wife. Adultery in the heart is a sin, but it’s not actual adultery that gives one the right to separate from one’s spouse.

  57. Pingback: Cutting leaders off at the knees. | Dalrock

  58. Pingback: Reframing Christian marriage | Dalrock

  59. Pingback: Whistling through the graveyard? | Dalrock

  60. Pingback: Will betas shrug? | Dalrock

  61. E. D. West says:

    Many pastors on TV seem to lean toward women saying “IF MAMMA AIN’T HAPPY NOBODY’S HAPPY “. God help us to do things your way amen. :)

  62. Anon E Myshkin says:

    [i]Shortly after I pointed this out, the moderators of the forum enacted a new rule forbidding members from writing anything in judgment of frivolous divorce[/i]

    “Alert. Alert. There’s a turd in the punch bowl.”

  63. Pingback: So You Want To Become A Pastor? | The Society of Phineas

  64. Pingback: Marriage 2.0 Sexuality | The Society of Phineas

  65. Pingback: Hostage negotiator for life? | Dalrock

  66. Pingback: It’s a feature, not a bug. | Dalrock

  67. Pingback: Female Solipsism | Dalrock

  68. Alshia says:

    Dalrock,

    Theoretically some pro-feminist could claim that the statistics is flawed because women in the older times were more hesitant to reveal to the public that they are unhappy in their marriage (for whatever reason). How can we respond to this?

    Another claim could be that women are more aware of their unhappiness now compared to the past, and therefore that the change in statistics merely reflect that change in awareness, and not necessarily an increase in unhappiness. (But it is interesting that this point doesn’t refute your argument that the laws have not change the unhappiness rate.)

  69. Pingback: Christian denial and institutional resistance to change. | Dalrock

  70. Pingback: Connecting the pathological fear of husbands having power with the peter pan manboy syndrome. | Dalrock

  71. Pingback: Debasing marriage | Dalrock

  72. Pingback: Catching Up « Manosphere Links

  73. Pingback: Father Know’s Best: Dalrock’s Donnerstag Dozen « Patriactionary

  74. MrsZ says:

    The lack of religion, traditional religion, being a primary element in people’s lives today … and the use of birth control in marriage I believe is responsible for women “having headaches” more often than not. Now that conception can be prevented most of the time, women’s sense that men are just using them as an “outlet” for their physical release is greater than before. Having children is not to be separated from the sexual act … by separating this fact, women know that they are not “special” to their husbands in any way. There’s nothing unique about a woman’s body to any man. But with the possibility of conceiving a child, a man is renewing his committment to THIS woman and to any children they might have. He’s choosing the action knowing the consequences.

  75. Pingback: Decoding Chivalry: Sketching at the window of this train of thought

  76. Pingback: Suzanne Venker on women’s rights, men’s responsibilities, and why she divorced her first husband. | Dalrock

  77. Pingback: - What’s so scary about submission? | The Woman and the Dragon

  78. Pingback: MSN Lifestyle Page.. Go Fuck Yourself « M3

  79. Pingback: Lowering the boom. | Dalrock

  80. Pingback: Let them eat cake. | Dalrock

  81. Pingback: A one sided conversation with Dr. Moore | Feminism is Empathological

  82. Pingback: BD #2 – The Damage of Divorce On Children | The Society of Phineas

  83. Pingback: A wife’s best defense against a troublesome mother-in-law. | Dalrock

  84. Pingback: Why aren’t men responding to economic signals? | Dalrock

  85. Pingback: Asking the wrong question. | Dalrock

  86. Pingback: Dalrock: asking the wrong question | Something Fishy

  87. Pingback: What is the domestic violence industry really about? | Dalrock

  88. idontknow says:

    Awww, you poor poor men :”'((
    Just stop getting married!!

  89. Pingback: Women’s morphing need for male investment. | Dalrock

  90. Pingback: Advice from an expert (on failing as a husband). | Dalrock

  91. Pingback: UPDATED - Social Scientists still remain baffled "Why Men Are Refusing to Marry",Deny the Obvious - WMASAW : WMASAW

  92. Tom H says:

    @MrsZ I think you’re totally off base. Birth preventatives have been around for millennia. I think that the primary reason for women losing interest in sex is because they fail to tell their men what they want and to learn the arousal signals that men give. So, it’s a problem of paying attention and communication, essentially. Sex is great for building emotional intimacy, which is what is sorely lacking and the lack of which is why both men and women are so unhappy in so many marriages.

    If a couple makes love four times per week during weeks when the woman isn’t menstruating, and spend an hour on it each time, then they spend less than three percent of their waking hours on sex. That is hardly a major investment of time.

    Of course, if the woman cheats the man (and herself!) and only spends enough time for his physical release, then she is simply making herself into a semen receptacle. Women need to understand that they need to fully embrace lovemaking. Men need the emotional satisfaction of the woman’s release as well as their own physical release. The more time spent on lovemaking (up to a point), the better the emotional intimacy.

  93. Tom H says:

    And here’s a little something for you young men. Quit pushing women to have sex before marriage. My daughter’s experience is that every so called Christian young man that she has dated has pushed her to have sex outside of marriage. I told her to marry a man who will treat her properly even if he is older, so you young men may end up growing old and having to marry sluts with infertility issues. Good luck getting them to stay faithful!

  94. Ton says:

    If you don’t push for sex they dump you.

  95. Lyn87 says:

    Ton said:

    If you don’t push for sex they dump you.

    Not if they’re worthwhile, they don’t. When I was single I had a couple of girlfriends push me for sex. They didn’t get it, and none of them dumped me for it (although it was probably one factor among several for one of my break-ups). One of them (who had a VERY high n-count – don’t ask why I was dating her: it’s a long story), was absolutely blown away by my refusal to bed her (she had propositioned me in no uncertain terms). Not only did she NOT dump me, but she actually proposed marriage to me later. (I politely declined.)

    Not only did my wife not push me for sex when we were dating, but she made sure I had saved it like she had. If I had given in to one of my earlier girlfriends she was prepared to walk away… and we were seriously dating by that time.

  96. Tom H says:

    You need to date a better class of women. My daughter dumps guys who push. She’s a beautiful doctor and she has no lack of dates.

    Maybe some of us dads should shoot the guys who push their daughters. Maybe that’s proper parenting?

  97. Ton says:

    LOL, better class of women….. next stop the twilight zone

  98. greyghost says:

    Lyn78 is an older fella and most likely his wife is in his age range. That is not “good” for a man today. For a man today I would suggest surrogacy ,male pill and pump and dump.
    Observer made a comment above about the dating market for thirty plus women. I took a read and found this retort from some stink hole justifying sluthood and old single pump and dump worthiness. http://nuswomens.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/a-woman-needs-a-man-bettina-arndt-please-stop-a-moment-while-i-vomit-all-over-you/

  99. Tom H says:

    I know at least three ladies who are part of the better class of women around 30. Yeah, two are my daughters. If anyone is looking for marriage and is able to lead, let me know of your interest and we can talk. These ladies are all alpha-females, so you better have your game on.

  100. Tom H says:

    Back in the day, before women’s “liberation” had seared the consciences of a lot of women, girls used to talk a lot and enforce sexual morality. Guys who pushed too much used to not get second dates or even first dates. Girls no longer enforce that morality through peer pressure and the dating scene still suffers from the loss of girls talking and enforcing morality. I have suggested to some that they form meetups of girls or some such social club to discuss boys and their behavior so that they can again establish morality. They can call loose girls “skanks” and “sluts” to help establish the morality.

  101. Lyn87 says:

    Greyghost, normally we’re on the same page, but not this time. You’ve fallen into the trap of making your belief unfalsifiable – where every counter-argument somehow doesn’t “count.” I’m not as old as you seem to think I am if you think I didn’t grow up in a time when the vast majority of girls and young women were oversexed skanks. Things aren’t much different now than they were when I was single… they certainly aren’t much worse (divorce statistics are similar, I came of age before anyone had ever heard of AIDS and “sexual liberation” was rampant, hypergamy has been with us since the dawn of time, etc). Feminism had not won as many legal victories as it has now, but it was still pretty bad. My elder brother went through the blue-pill, bad marriage, false accusation, meat-grinder and he is four older than I am.

    I didn’t tell anyone to marry anyone – I just state truths about the SMP that have been true at least since the late 1960’s / early 1970’s… long before I was old enough to join the dance. I just stated that blanket statements like “If you don’t push for sex they dump you” are false, and always have been.

    We can agree that the vast majority of today’s women are not marriage material, and the few who are may not make the risk worthwhile for anyone, but anyone who thinks that ALL women are horrible, gold-digging sluts is simply keeping bad company… and one is known by the company one keeps. Men have agency, too.

    But your advice is the worst of all. “For a man today I would suggest surrogacy ,male pill and pump and dump.” The worse thing that happens to a blue-pill guy who jumps into the meat-grinder is pretty bad (divorce, cuckoldry, losing his kids, jail), but that’s NOTHING next to eternal damnation, which is what an unrepentant life of man-whoring leads to. Essentially you’re saying, “Don’t step off that curb: you might twist your ankle. Instead, jump off the side of this skyscraper!”

  102. 8to12 says:

    Ton says: If you don’t push for sex they dump you.

    Right after they accuse you of being gay.

    This all makes sense if you look at it through the lens of female validation.

    If a woman gets validation from how men act towards her, and a man (one she desires) isn’t pushing to have sex with her, then it means one of two things:

    1) there is something wrong with her
    2) there is something wrong with him

    #1 is a disaster for the validation hungry woman, so she lowers the barriers to the point that they don’t exist (ensuring she gets the male validation she needs). But if a man still won’t jump her bones after she has lowered all her barriers, then #1 rears its head again–something she can’t accept. So she declares there’s something wrong with the guy (he’s gay) and dumps him.

    On the other hand, a woman that doesn’t need male validation can afford to keep her sexual barriers high.

  103. Luke says:

    Lyn87 says:
    November 15, 2013 at 8:49 am “But your advice is the worst of all. “For a man today I would suggest surrogacy ,male pill and pump and dump.” The worse thing that happens to a blue-pill guy who jumps into the meat-grinder is pretty bad (divorce, cuckoldry, losing his kids, jail), but that’s NOTHING next to eternal damnation, which is what an unrepentant life of man-whoring leads to”

    Surrogacy without the nonmarital sex should be fine theologically for many to most Christians, though. I have two young daughters whose origin was ova donors and a gestational surrogate, and I consider myself Christian. (I was married to their legal mother at the time of conception, and still am today).

  104. Luke says:

    MrsZ says:
    October 25, 2012 at 11:22 am
    “… the use of birth control in marriage I believe is responsible for women “having headaches” more often than not. Now that conception can be prevented most of the time, women’s sense that men are just using them as an “outlet” for their physical release is greater than before. Having children is not to be separated from the sexual act … by separating this fact, women know that they are not “special” to their husbands in any way”

    Incorrect. Your ability to read mens’ thoughts has completely failed you here.
    A man is quite capable of becoming emotionally attached to a particular woman such that she AND HER BODY are “special” to him (and thus desirable to him) ALL the time. This is called “falling in love”; perhaps you’ve heard of it? Many to most men believe themselves to be in this condition when they marry, and who could judge more accurately than themselves if they are?

    Anyway, it is an aspect (as fundamental as it is unusual) of our species’ sexuality (going back long far before recorded history) that a woman routinely makes herself sexually available to her mate (the father of her children) even while pregnant or otherwise infertile (such as during the extended nursing routine in preindustrial cultures). Expecting as her Plan “A” for a man to go that kind of duration without the sexual outlet he likely needs and wants daily at least during most of his adult life is a recipe for finding herself without a provider or protector before her baby is even born. This is well-known among zoologists, anthropologists, and such; I’m not one, and I knew this. Not a Desmond Morris (wrote the popular paperback book “The Naked Ape” decades ago) reader, I see.

  105. Lyn87 says:

    No offense, Luke, but I think you missed the point. I quoted Greyghost, but the only part I took issue with was his advice to engage in “pump-and-dump.” I have no opinion about surrogacy for married couples. I would probably object to any single person going that route, though.

  106. Lyn87 says:

    Luke says:
    November 15, 2013 at 11:34 am

    Good points there, Luke. You mentioned that your children were the result of donated eggs and a gestational surrogate, from which I assume that your wife is infertile. Mine is as well. There are a lot of so-called Christians who would say that we’re not “really” married because of that – since sex is the sine qua non of marriage and pregnancy is the sine qua non of sex.

  107. Dalrock says:

    @Tom H (over several comments on this thread)

    And here’s a little something for you young men. Quit pushing women to have sex before marriage. My daughter’s experience is that every so called Christian young man that she has dated has pushed her to have sex outside of marriage.

    My daughter dumps guys who push. She’s a beautiful doctor and she has no lack of dates.

    Maybe some of us dads should shoot the guys who push their daughters. Maybe that’s proper parenting?

    I know at least three ladies who are part of the better class of women around 30. Yeah, two are my daughters. If anyone is looking for marriage and is able to lead, let me know of your interest and we can talk. These ladies are all alpha-females, so you better have your game on.

    You are complaining about the lack of men wanting to be traditional Christian husbands to your daughters who you explain don’t want to be traditional Christian wives. How can you not see the problem with this? Your daughters are by your own description “alpha female” career women feminists. As such, they will understandably have a great deal of trouble finding attractive traditional men who want to marry them. The men with the kind of game you are looking for (to tame their alpha female feminism) are either non traditional (and therefore pushing for sex) or are traditional (and given their attractiveness are able to marry young, traditional women). Basically what your complaint boils down to is “Feminism would work if we didn’t have weak men screwing everything up.”

  108. Luke says:

    Lyn87 says:
    November 15, 2013 at 11:35 am
    I have no opinion about surrogacy for married couples. I would probably object to any single person going that route, though.”

    Whether or not a single using surrogacy is in your religion or not, I can’t judge. The life outcome statistics are pretty clear for unmarried fathers with custody of minor children, and unmarried mothers with custody of minor children. The former do very nearly as well on average in raising children as do heterosexual couples in intact marriages (where those children were conceived in and born into the marriage). The latter are commonly disastrous; the odds of almost everything important that can be measured are much worse on average. It’s not just the odds of criminality (7x as likely for bastard sons); the average chances of bastards not finishing high school/college, using drugs, committing bastardy themselves later on, divorcing if they do ever marry, etc., etc., are all much worse. They’re even up to 40% more likely to habitually choose homosexual behavior!

    So, the judgement has to be that single men having a child via egg donor/surrogacy, maybe to probably; single women, NEVER.

  109. Lyn87 says:

    Luke, I generally agree with your conclusion. But while it’s clear that single custodial fathers are better parents (on average) than single custodial mothers, there’s probably more to it than that. Single parenthood is the default setting for unmarried skanks and frivorcees, but men who have custody are a very different group. Single mothers are default custodial parents, while single custodial fathers are deliberate parents… and thus not the social correspondents of baby-mommas. A single man who has custody is probably a stable, stand-up guy who went to great lengths to get the kids (and some are widowers). A single woman who has kids is probably a woman who makes bad decisions about a lot of things.

    The number of single surrogate fathers is still vanishingly small, and the long-term outcomes are unknown. It’s far too soon to say that they’re going to do as well as the single men who have custody today because they fought hard for it or their wives died.

  110. Luke says:

    Lyn87, agreed that the numbers of single surrogacy-origin fathers is small. They are indeed deliberate fathers, very much so. I spent a year and a half working close to 90% of the time on oil rigs (I’m a geologist) to come up with the estimated $60K that our daughters cost us to come into this world. (Wife worked all the OT she could get at an office job, which helped, but still was minor in comparison.) Being WANTED by a parent who has demonstrated the very long-term thinking (much longer than one Saturday night “forgetting” to put the diaphragm in) is, as you have noted is part of this difference. However, as or more important (given how many “surprise” fathers have historically done excellent jobs fathering IF ALLOWED TO) has to be that the values of women when not closely influenced by men are clearly usually much inferior to men in the reverse position. Why else would the bulk of the criminals come from homes where growing up they had the “benefit” of women’s values in pure form?

    Anyway, most single-fathers-via-surrogacy likely wanted to be married fathers, and in a sane world would have been, but (as sadly as rationally) made the thought-out decision that this was not likely to happen in the first place (or succeed if it did). So, again, it’s apples and oranges.

  111. TFH says:

    Tom H boasted :

    Maybe some of us dads should shoot the guys who push their daughters. Maybe that’s proper parenting?

    What a moron you are. I presume you don’t have a son, because that means that some other old blowhard would happily shoot your son, if they were as morally empty as you.

    Plus, on one hand, you claim your daughter is an intelligent doctor. On the other hand, she is not capable of deciding for herself whether to have sex. You clearly don’t think she can think for herself.

    People like you prove that ‘Social Conservatives’ are just economic leftists and hardcore feminists in disguise.

    Oh, and I have news for you. Your daughter is not a virgin. She just told you she is (or you just assume she is, without her saying such).

  112. greyghost says:

    I understand your point Lyn87, and the world you described maybe for my son (now 7) I fully agree hypergamy was hypergamy then and now because human beings are human beings. The culture was different and the attitude and actions clearly were different. It just so happens I watch two “old movies one from 1976 and the other 1970 “Carrie” and the other a Chuck Bronson movie “Rider on the Rain”. What was interesting was the dynamic portrayed between the male and female characters. There was clearly a different PC dynamic back then regardless of the feminist rhetoric at the time. The male characters were fearlessly doing and saying what needed to be said and done. No way in hell would scripts like that get out. It was a different world those little tells a red pill man sees that he could not see before gives it away. I think and know you have just been out of circulation as a Christian married man.
    This is why in todays world a “good” man that wants a family needs to not concern himself with having a wife for there is not one to be had. This guy is not an MRA and has never heard of men’s blogs. very crass https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cml3TU2B_38

  113. Martian Bachelor says:

    LOL, better class of women….. next stop the twilight zone. (Ton)

    I’m going to be ROFLMAO every time I think about that one for days…

    Under femi-communism, women claim status/class based on how little they do for men, on how much they cost.

    Whoring and gubmint are the only two businesses where “success” amounts to ratcheting things in the “pay more, get less” direction as far as possible until everyone is tithing through sheer force of habit.

  114. Tom H says:

    @TFH Maybe you can’t tell hyperbole? Or maybe you are just morally bankrupt and into continuing the moral morass that society is now? If I had a son that pushed women to have sex out of wedlock, I’d be sad because of his folly if some father shot him for disrespecting his daughter, but wouldn’t change my position. The threat of shooting would probably be sufficient to put most young men in line. Maybe you just don’t give a shit. Or maybe, you need a craniorectotomy. Yeah, that’s probably it.

    It’s people like you who provide fodder for the argument for retroactive abortion.

    @Dalrock
    “Your daughters are by your own description “alpha female” career women feminists.” Bullshit. They are alphas because they are intelligent and hardworking. They could be homemakers and they’d still be alphas. “Alpha” not necessarily = “feminist.” Both of my daughters are anti-feminism. If they were married, they might still work, Idk. Maybe, maybe not. The younger one has become engaged to a guy who is a lot older than she is because all the younger guys she has dated are skanks/pushers and the older guy treats her with respect. Not ideal, but you play the hand you’re dealt. The older daughter will have trouble finding a man smarter than she is who isn’t a skank, so she may become an old maid doctor. She needs an alpha male who is very intelligent and traditional for a spouse and those are hard to find.

    Your conclusion is absurd and irrelevant. I’m anti-feminism hard core. Didn’t always used to be this way, but I have been since my daughters hit puberty. Oh, and I don’t go to Christian bookstores unless I want to buy a Bible or something to help me with exegesis. I don’t waste my money on the trash in the Christian Living section.

    @Lyn87
    Right on target. You must have read Jeff Cooper!

    @8to12
    Great points! Keep blogging!

  115. TomH,

    If I had a son that pushed women to have sex out of wedlock, I’d be sad because of his folly if some father shot him for disrespecting his daughter, but wouldn’t change my position. The threat of shooting would probably be sufficient to put most young men in line. Maybe you just don’t give a shit. Or maybe, you need a craniorectotomy. Yeah, that’s probably it.

    Well I have a daughter but I don’t have a son. If I had a son who was shot because he was pushing someone for sex outside of marriage, the shooter (whoever he is) is going to wind up dead, FROM ME. As a father of a daughter I can say the same thing anyone would say, that there should be no “threat of being shot” toward anyone’s son for him pushing anyone’s daughter for sex outside of marriage. You don’t threaten someone with murder. What the hell is the matter with people who think like that? What there might be (from me, depending on the situation, depending on if my daughter is 16 or 26) is a little talk with the young man telling him that if he wanted to continue to see my baby girl, he better cool it on his hormones. I can say that because I’ve been there, I certainly understand how difficult it is.

    Now, if she’s 26 (if he is gung-ho and my little girl is absolutely everything he wants in a woman, if she really loves him, and if I believe he is sincere) he better be thinking Christian marriage. In which case, he better provide for my daughter a stable husband who is going to work so very hard for her outside the home and be all that he can be for her in the bedroom AND provide me with about twelve grandchildren so I can surround myself with grandkids I can spoil rotten at Christmas time in old age. I’m saying that because I’m greedy. I don’t know about you other dads, but I want a BROOD of grandkids provided to me from my happily married daughter. I do NOT want MGTOW. I’m not going to want to do anything to dissuade any young Christian man who is so very attracted to my girl from chasing her. IMHO, any father with a daughter should be encouraging the sincere young men. He doesn’t have to be perfect (no human being is) he just has to really love her and want to spend his life with her.

    There is nothing wrong with men wanting to have sex with women. We have hormones. We have all been there.

  116. Pingback: Why men are withdrawing from courtship. | Dalrock

  117. TFH says:

    I detect that Tom H, in his youth, was restricted from having any physical contact with the woman who had selected him as her provider, even while suspecting that she had a more extensive sexual past than she disclosed to him.

    His seething need to obstruct young men now, is a symptom of bitterness from having missed out in his youth.

    Plus, if his daughters are already ‘doctors’, as he claims, they might be 27, 29, or even 32 years of age. They are not traditional by a long stretch… nor are they chaste.

    And Tom H’s ignorance in calling such women ‘alphas’ shows his solipism and gender confusion as a parent. There were a couple of good articles in the androsphere about how fathers wreck their daughters by thinking they are sons, and push them into careers while chasing away any men that might be interested in them.

    With Tom H as a father, his daughters will likely be spinsters at age 35, who just cannot realize why men don’t value their medical careers, and that a pretty 22 year-old receptionist is the recipient of more male attention than a 35-year-old doctor.

    And last but not least, college tuition (especially med school) is at the most expensive ever, even as doctor salaries are dropping. If your daughters are recent MD graduates with a lot of student loan debt, their earnings will not be enough to have a positive net worth until several years of practicing medicine. I bet you want some sucker to marry her and pay off her student debt (which is part of why you want a ‘traditional man’. I have to tell you, by saddling your daughters with massive debt and ensuring they are still single at 30+, you have done them immense harm, and greatly increased the chances that they will not be able to marry at all.

  118. TFH says:

    Tom H doesn’t realize that if his daughters go to church, they have already had a large number of sexual partners. Pickup artists have seen how promiscuous church women are, and have found that the church is little more than a Sunday Morning Nightclub.

    Furthermore, the slimy, misandric SoCon Tom H doubles down on how a young man should be exterminated, if the sex that happens is not on the woman’s terms (even if decided retroactively. He actually said this :

    If I had a son that pushed women to have sex out of wedlock, I’d be sad because of his folly if some father shot him for disrespecting his daughter, but wouldn’t change my position. The threat of shooting would probably be sufficient to put most young men in line.

    I wonder if he thinks it is at all possible for a woman to ‘disrespect’ a man.

    Also, readers should note that this is a perfect example of how a misandric SoCon is the totalitarian leftist’s best friend. People like Tom H are quite zealous about jailing men on false rape accusations, eliminating due process, and bypassing the pesky US Constitution if it gets in the way of their misandric whiteknighting. People like Tom H are exactly the reason why the US Constitution has been shredded in matters of man vs. woman disputes.

    Now, back to the ‘disrespect’…. according to this creature Tom H, someone is disrespecting a young woman just by increasing her sexual partner count from, say, 14 to 15. #15 disrespected her (as decided by her two weeks later), hence Tom H thinks the innocent man should be killed.

  119. Tom H says:

    Oh, those are fighting words. We need to arrange a time and place to have it out, unless you are a cowardly mangina.

  120. TFH says:

    Oh, those are fighting words. We need to arrange a time and place to have it out, unless you are a cowardly mangina.

    I have a saying that is famous in these parts…. anyone who makes a waaaaay off-base accusation, is engaging in projection.

    You have extensively proved your ‘mangina’ inclination from your comments, given how deeply you believe that the well-being of women is far more valuable than the well-being of men.

    So, in your antiquated view, is it possible for a woman to ‘disrespect’ a man?
    Do women ever falsely accuse innocent men of rape? What punishment should a woman receive for doing this?
    Do women ever conduct paternity fraud on men?

    Answer those questions, if you are so brave.

  121. TFH says:

    Mr. Tom Hogan’s Facebook profile is linked to his handle. From about 30 seconds on that, I gather :

    1) He is pretty old. Age 65+. It is well-documented that men of his generation simply have no idea how uncouth modern women have become. They are thin clients who draw their guidance from the ‘cloud’, which are traditional customs designed to constrain the true nature of women, and be simple enough for laypeople to follow. The thin clients are trained to follow these customs without realizing what they do, and that if the cloud itself changes, they are unable to detect that their beliefs no longer create the outcomes they like, nor can they diagnose the situation and create a better solution.

    2) He married an Asian woman, but his daughters have much darker skin than one would expect from the combination of him and his wife. Are they adopted? Perhaps he can elaborate.

    3) As a man of 65+, he may not be aware that justifying the killing of young men who have pre-marital sex, under his real name, can have real-world ramifications for his reputation.

    4) As a man of 65+, wanting to arrange physical fights with men half his age, is textbook bravado by someone who has no such real-life toughness. And why would I want to waste time fighting him, when I instead can go to the church and have sex with the church sluts, who then tell their fathers that they are virgins? The latter is a better use of my time.

    Sorry, Mr. Hogan, but it is time for you to leave, and ponder how you are going to apologize to your daughters for greatly reducing their marriage prospects, and leaving them single at age 35… I think you are aware that outside of the distortions of America, (especially in a country like the Philippines) a woman who is unmarried at age 28 is considered pretty late, no matter what her education. You have a bigger problem than you realize, and blaming the customer (men) will not solve it.

  122. greyghost says:

    Under femi-communism, women claim status/class based on how little they do for men, on how much they cost. You nailed that Martian Bachelor.
    Tom H
    Your daughters were born during wartime and are of draft age. The only value your daughters have and have ever had in this lifetime is a place to warm an alpha penis you said so repeatedly yourself. You talk all this churchian stuff about an alpha churchian man well let me break it to you alphas don’t date, they fuck and they damn sure don’t marry. (unless you plan on having a thug son in law living off educated pumpkin’s pay check and making payments on the players Bimmer while he roles with his harem) Wives aren’t pleased they please her man who pleases god. God will take care of a wife the regularly fucks Christian husband. Basically you are saying she is completely worthless and you’re proud of it. What a waste 30 plus year old 6 figure income for one person paying full income tax. Just think if that was a Christian son he would have a 24 year old wife and you would have a couple of grand kids. Same income and four lives. ( anybody with a nice ass and a pleasant personality would do, sure natural and normal hypergamy would meet up with the laws of misandry, but hey we talking a sound foundation here) A wife is pleasant and is ready to submit to her husband that is a wife. You fucked up and right now you are marketing your daughters as entitled pieces of ass and don’t even know it. The sad thing is every achievement your daughters have made could have been done while in submission as a loyal helper to her family. That is regardless of who her man is other than a working productive man of faith.

  123. TFH says:

    Martian Bachelor,

    Under femi-communism, women claim status/class based on how little they do for men, on how much they cost.
    Whoring and gubmint are the only two businesses where “success” amounts to ratcheting things in the “pay more, get less” direction as far as possible until everyone is tithing through sheer force of habit.

    Wow, that is an extremely well-constructed summary. A quote worthy of recognition….

    I notice that this tendency of being *proud* of worsening value-for-money in women is rapidly spreading to non-Western countries as well. Women are measured by how little they do for men, while costing the man the most. This is why I say that this is the mother of all bubbles, and when this resource misallocation corrects, it will be messy.

  124. THF,

    And last but not least, college tuition (especially med school) is at the most expensive ever, even as doctor salaries are dropping. If your daughters are recent MD graduates with a lot of student loan debt, their earnings will not be enough to have a positive net worth until several years of practicing medicine.

    Nah, they’ll be fine.

    While “residents” they will make maybe $40 to $45K (if they are lucky) but they can get their medical school loans deferred for at least 4 years. After their residency, (at age 30 or 35 or whatever) they are making $100K even as rookie doctors. They’ll be fine.

    Yes, you are right, doctors are (IMHO) not paid enough. And with the ACA their compensation will be going down further which is real bad for all of us (we want the best and the brightest to be our medical doctors.) But even rookie doctors make good money. Just 5 years in, medical doctors make excellent money, more than enough to pay their loans. An Obstetrician gets paid between $4000 to $8000 for a single delivery.

  125. TFH says:

    IBB,

    Oh, I don’t think doctors are underpaid. US doctors make much more than in Canada or the UK. US doctors have artificially high salaries due to the AMA restricting the supply of doctors.

    But there is a good chance that these two young women have student debt of $200K+. Women tend to go into lower-paying fields like Pediatrics or General Medicine, where they will make $150K/year pre-tax, which only starts at age 29.

    They can pay off the debt, but won’t have a positive net worth until age 35+. And almost all women expect a man to pay off her student loans (another reasons colleges have gotten away with jacking up fees).

  126. feeriker says:

    He is pretty old. Age 65+. It is well-documented that men of his generation simply have no idea how uncouth modern women have become.

    Hogwash. Given what you’ve posted of his profile, his age means that he reached adulthood at the time of feminism’s ascendance. This means that unless he’s been living all of his life in a cabin out in the backwoods of West Virginia (judging from the clueless belligerence of his posts, that’s a very real possibility), he could not possibly NOT be aware of how crass, slutty, and uncouth modern women have become. In fact, given that Tom is either an early Boomer or a War Baby (born between ’41 and ’45), he and the rest of his generation should shoulder the lion’s share of the BLAME for what women today have come. Of course being a TradCon/SoCon means never having to accept responsibility for ANYTHING.

  127. TFH says:

    feeriker,

    You may be right. I was being generous.

    Perhaps his deep anger is due to not getting any during the famous summers of 1967-69, and he has a barely-containable desire to murder men who got some (as manifested by his threats of violence towards other men, whether ‘retroactive abortion’, shooting any men still interested in his daughters despite having HIM has a father-in-law, or claiming to wish to fight someone who logically dismantles his comments, rather than address questions posed to him).

    He is of the Bill Bennett generation, though. That is the block that still behaves this way…

  128. Farm Boy says:

    These ladies are all alpha-females, so you better have your game on.

    Why would a fella even bother considering them for marriage?

  129. Tom H says:

    Actually, some recruiters are promising $300k the first year to starting surgeons.

    @tfh
    You know absolutely NOTHING about my daughters’ finances and you make these ludicrous, ignorant statements, lol. Go away son, you’re just a fart in the wind. Cowardly mangina!

    @Farm It’s called love. Alpha males won’t mind their mates being alpha females. In fact, they prefer alpha females to betas. For you betas, of course you wouldn’t consider yourselves in their league. I don’t see what’s hard to understand?

    @feeriker
    Good analysis up until the part about a generation assuming blame. There’s a lot you haven’t thought of yet. Feminism in a large part is a toxic response to the cultural pathology of the teenage boy culture’s predatory view of girls. There’s a whole lot of other toxic stuff in feminism, too. You should assign blame to movements and individuals, not to age groups. Lots of us have been in the trenches battling feminism.

    @general
    Lots of toxic stuff here by a lot of young dumbasses who’ve not been through what we old married types have. 34 years of marriage here and wife is very submissive AND an alpha. Love her to death. Yeah, she works and is dominant there in her office. I go out at night dancing and she stays home. I’m a pain in the ass to live with, being an autist, but she puts up with me. No question, she was a prime catch.

  130. Tom H says:

    You show more good sense. A careful reader would have realized that my remarks were hyperbolic and I even stated that in my remarks to another poster. I would certainly consider a lashing to be on the table for anyone who disrespects a woman for pushing her to have sex if it could be proven, of course.

    @tfh
    So, in your antiquated view, is it possible for a woman to ‘disrespect’ a man? Of course.
    Do women ever falsely accuse innocent men of rape? Of course. What punishment should a woman receive for doing this? Same as the man would if he had committed rape
    Do women ever conduct paternity fraud on men? Sure, and men father children out of wedlock that their wives have to help pay for, too. Really, you are very narrow in your views.

    Your modern view is very feminist in nature. My “antiquated” view is masculine. So, go ahead and disrespect my masculine view, you cowardly mangina. When you apologize for your remarks disrespecting my daughters, I’ll stop calling you a cowardly mangina. You’re probably a skankman who should be removed from the gene pool because your actions are bad for the herd.

  131. Tom H says:

    So, if a man dates your daughter and keeps pushing her to have sex, are you just going to roll over? Do you care about your daughter’s honor even a little? Just curious….

  132. greyghost says:

    Don’t lie to little princess. Make sure she knows she is one dick away from being a slut. My daughter just turned 13 she has already heard from me as I commented on a television article “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CHEATING ON A GIRLFRIEND.” “The only women that matter are wives if you are not a wife you are just another piece of ass” She has already heard that from her dad. For you appalled churchians they take like that and worse in junior high and middle school these days with the smart phones logged on to “worldstarhiphop”

  133. Cane Caldo says:

    Tom H said:Lots of toxic stuff here by a lot of young dumbasses who’ve not been through what we old married types have. 34 years of marriage here and wife is very submissive AND an alpha. Love her to death. Yeah, she works and is dominant there in her office. I go out at night dancing and she stays home. I’m a pain in the ass to live with, being an autist, but she puts up with me. No question, she was a prime catch.

    Tom, you don’t know what you are talking about. You don’t know what the term “alpha” means to everyone else here, and it’s highly unlikely you are an alpha yourself (as you have claimed several times now.

    To wit (from your Facebook profile pic comments):

    I [Tom] was peeping pretty openly, Tiff. Our teacher was sunbathing in a bikini on a lounge chair near the sidewalk and I couldn’t very well not say hello. She probably felt a little uncomfortable as did I. We didn’t chat long–well, I didn’t. Maybe she was quite comfortable, especially since I was quite shy. She was in her early 20’s and quite cute and pretty girls/women that I didn’t know always threw me off of my game. I still often get tongue-tied, especially if they approach me and I don’t have a table or counter between us, lol. No problem with pretty cashiers, There was this pretty young woman at the grocery store in a long filmy very pretty dress who I noticed the other day, then she came near me and I ran like a dog with its tail between its legs, lol. More good material for my book, ty, Tiff, you’re my muse.

    So deeply beta. Hey man: You’re a self-described autist. The good news is that, because of this, one should expect you to understand subtle human dynamics, and can be forgiven for deeply misreading your own experiences, wife’s motivations, daughters’ actions, etc. The bad news is: You have constipation of the brain which is inducing diarrhea of the mouth.

  134. Aurini says:

    Humans are still animals, morality or no, and for a woman to forego sex until the age of 30 – even if she’s doing it for the noblest of reasons – is still going to warp her brain.

    Without sex, there is no future generation; calling it “Our number one purpose,” may be a bit of a stretch, but we’re certainly programmed for it. The only way to resist that temptation for 10, for 15 years, is to warp your own sexual instincts; to deaden the part of yourself that feels arousal, and channel the energy into another purpose.

    This doesn’t make you an evil person – but it does make you a terrible spousal prospect. Personally, I’d prefer a twenty-five year old who’d made a couple of mistakes and sought forgiveness, than a “holier than thou” virgin who’s going to treat sex as an obligation, and not a celebrated duty.

    In the cases of Tom Hs daughters – assuming they’re virgins – they most certainly haven’t been doing it for the noblest of reasons. They haven’t been holding out, while actively seeking a good husband – they’ve been pursuing masculine careers to inflate their own egos. A good girl who’s holding out, while actively looking (and having terrible luck), is going to inflate her standards for what a “good” husband is to the stratosphere; I can only imagine what Tom H’s daughters are expecting out of a man.

    The best advice for these ladies would be “To get thee to a nunnery” – and I mean that with all three of Shakespeare’s intended interpretations.

    1. Go to a convent
    2. Go to a whorehouse
    3. Accept that we’re all sinners and whores, seek redemption, and try and live the best life you can.

    Their chastity is just another form of whoredom.

  135. Tom H says:

    Humans are not animals. We are very different creatures than any animal. If you don’t believe the Bible, too bad for you.

    No question that the girls should have sought out good husbands a lot sooner and didn’t listen to Dad about that. They really didn’t try all that hard. Still, with the lack of marriageable men, not too surprising that they didn’t find anyone with their searches.

    Not surprising also that the doctor doesn’t have much time for dating while in med school and residency. 80+ hours studying/working per week doesn’t leave much time for personal stuff like buying groceries, not to mention dating.

    Other one is engaged. Too late, boys. I do know one other nice lady who is available.

    “Their chastity is just another form of whoredom.” Aurini, your boyfriend says that he’s leaving you. He’s found your name and phone number on the walls of all the bathhouses he’s played in across the country.

    @Cane Caldo
    No, I know what an alpha is and an alpha prime. You obviously don’t know what an alpha prime is. Try to learn by asking questions instead of just spewing shit out of your pie hole. And don’t assume that what happened in youth has any semblance to what happens when you get older. And don’t assume that a temporary tongue malfunction has any serious effects on one’s attractiveness to the opposite sex. I got hit on a lot when I wasn’t wearing my wedding ring. I flirt some and lots of chicks like it, even when they know I’m married. Just last night a cute chick wanted to dance with me even though she was tipsy and didn’t know the dance and I didn’t either. How did I know that she was tipsy? She said, “I’m not sure I can dance that. I don’t know the dance and I’ve had a little too much wine to drink.” We danced anyway and had a good time. I think that I danced with her about as much as her boyfriend did.

  136. Cane Caldo says:

    @Tom H

    No, I know what an alpha is and an alpha prime.

    Not here, you don’t.

    You obviously don’t know what an alpha prime is.

    Let me just direct you to yourself, where–moments before–you wrote, “Humans are not animals.”, and then consider that you are not saying what you seem to think you are saying.

    Try to learn by asking questions instead of just spewing shit out of your pie hole.

    I don’t need to ask you questions because I’ve patiently read what you’ve written so far. More to the point: You demonstrated that you neither know what you’re talking about; nor what others are saying. No good could possibly come by me to asking you a question.

    And don’t assume that what happened in youth has any semblance to what happens when you get older.

    I don’t have to assume because I was able to quote your Facebook (which is for chicks and queers, by the way):

    We didn’t chat long–well, I didn’t. Maybe she was quite comfortable, especially since I was quite shy. She was in her early 20′s and quite cute and pretty girls/women that I didn’t know always threw me off of my game. I still often get tongue-tied, especially if they approach me and I don’t have a table or counter between us, lol.

    LOL indeed.

    And don’t assume that a temporary tongue malfunction has any serious effects on one’s attractiveness to the opposite sex.

    1. You said it was lifelong, Tom. That’s not temporary. Get your story straight. 2. Of course it does. First impressions matter.

    I got hit on a lot when I wasn’t wearing my wedding ring.

    No doubt. You’re on Facebook where all the other psychologically unsound folks can find you.

    I flirt some and lots of chicks like it, even when they know I’m married. Just last night a cute chick wanted to dance with me even though she was tipsy and didn’t know the dance and I didn’t either. How did I know that she was tipsy? She said, “I’m not sure I can dance that. I don’t know the dance and I’ve had a little too much wine to drink.” We danced anyway and had a good time. I think that I danced with her about as much as her boyfriend did.

    Well, you say you’re an alpha, you claim your wife is a hot alpha woman (It was an extraordinarily foolish thing to introduce your wife to this conversation. She’s not an alpha in any way that anyone besides you can care about.), you’re on Facebook, and you wield a clumsy misunderstanding of the language of Game. There’s no reason for me to believe this dance interlude went down in any fashion that even remotely resembles the actual events referenced…or at all, for that matter.

    @Aurini

    They haven’t been holding out, while actively seeking a good husband – they’ve been pursuing masculine careers to inflate their own egos. A good girl who’s holding out, while actively looking (and having terrible luck), is going to inflate her standards for what a “good” husband is to the stratosphere; I can only imagine what Tom H’s daughters are expecting out of a man.

    The chance that their Asian mother (Tom’s wife) has nothing to do with them both becoming childless spinster doctors approaches zero. Sure, it’s a stereotype–and for very good reason.

  137. Ray Manta says:

    Tom H said:
    Actually, some recruiters are promising $300k the first year to starting surgeons.

    So are your daughters surgeons? Women tend to follow the primary care path such as pediatrics and internal medicine. Also, if we take the article below at face value, I doubt that starting surgeons are likely to get that much money. The only specialties listed that cleared 300k were radiology, orthopedics, and cardiology. And I’m willing to bet those that make that kind of money are well past their graduation date.

    http://healthland.time.com/2012/04/27/doctors-salaries-who-earns-the-most-and-the-least/

    So, if a man dates your daughter and keeps pushing her to have sex, are you just going to roll over?

    Well, if he’s the 20th notch on her belt, shooting the guy doesn’t make much sense. She should be grateful that he’s showing her attention.

  138. Ton says:

    A friend of mine is a surgeon. I put earn him & it’s no where near 300k

  139. Tom H says:

    Cane, let’s hope for the sake of the human race that you don’t have children.

    Same goes for Ton.

    And Ray.

    All Nimrods. I don’t argue with Nimrods. No point.

  140. Cane Caldo says:

    @Tom

    Cane, let’s hope for the sake of the human race that you don’t have children.

    This attitude is why you don’t have any grandchildren.

  141. Ton says:

    Oh I have kids, one is a Ranger with 1st Batt, the other engaged to an SF officer. A man among men, and a prized jewel of another man among men.

  142. Ray Manta says:

    Tom H wrote:
    And Ray.

    All Nimrods. I don’t argue with Nimrods.

    You don’t, or you can’t?

    No point

    I have to give you credit, Tom. You sure can turn and run on a dime.

  143. @ Tom H

    You are a mentally unstable man. You don’t belong here, the asylum is two blocks down and to the left.

  144. greyghost says:

    Ton
    I bet it would be fun as hell to come to your place for thanksgiving dinner. “get the det cord and throwing knives kids we are going to Uncle Ton’s this year”

  145. Toffee Hammer says:

    @Tom H:

    I’m a godly, Christian man looking for a godly, Christian wife. Be warned that I am also an “alpha male”. I do not consider a high income or successful career signs of a godly Christian living; in fact, “it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” and “one cannot serve God and mammon”. (I should know: I’m a rich man and I am challeneged to serve in God’s kingdom because of how tempting the things of this world are.)

    I do not “pressure for sex”, although I do tend to use innuendo and double entendres to find out if a young woman is willing to sleep with me quite easily. If I detect willingness, that means she’s not a good wife for me.

    Game on!

  146. Tom H says:

    @Toffee
    Message me on facebook with references and I’ll reply. Ball’s in your court.

  147. Opus says:

    Genuinely surprised to learn that Humans (featherless bipeds) aren’t animals. Is this the usual Xtian position?

  148. Tom H says:

    “All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.” 1 Cor. 15:39

  149. Opus says:

    Strange Taxonomy.

  150. 8oxer says:

    Your daughters were born during wartime and are of draft age. The only value your daughters have and have ever had in this lifetime is a place to warm an alpha penis you said so repeatedly yourself. You talk all this churchian stuff about an alpha churchian man well let me break it to you alphas don’t date, they fuck and they damn sure don’t marry. (unless you plan on having a thug son in law living off educated pumpkin’s pay check and making payments on the players Bimmer while he roles with his harem) Wives aren’t pleased they please her man who pleases god. God will take care of a wife the regularly fucks Christian husband. Basically you are saying she is completely worthless and you’re proud of it. What a waste 30 plus year old 6 figure income for one person paying full income tax. Just think if that was a Christian son he would have a 24 year old wife and you would have a couple of grand kids. Same income and four lives. ( anybody with a nice ass and a pleasant personality would do, sure natural and normal hypergamy would meet up with the laws of misandry, but hey we talking a sound foundation here) A wife is pleasant and is ready to submit to her husband that is a wife. You fucked up and right now you are marketing your daughters as entitled pieces of ass and don’t even know it. The sad thing is every achievement your daughters have made could have been done while in submission as a loyal helper to her family. That is regardless of who her man is other than a working productive man of faith.

    Damn Grey Ghost, that is some deep red pill stuff right there.

  151. Pingback: Progress | Dalrock

  152. Pingback: Divorce is Good for Women and Families | The Reinvention of Man

  153. Pingback: More ominous than a strike. | Dalrock

  154. Pingback: Child support and the threat point. | Dalrock

  155. Pingback: Marriage risk | Zippy Catholic

  156. Pingback: Slow your roll | Dalrock

  157. Pingback: What is modern marriage for? | Dalrock

  158. Pingback: Oh How You Missed the Point | The Reinvention of Man

  159. Pingback: Woman laments her BF of 4 years doesn’t seem to want the legal marital contract. TwoXChromosomes comes up with a marvellous answer. | How to Attract Girls | Dating Website Advice| 100 Hottest Women | An Obsession Systems International Company

  160. Pingback: Missing The Sales Pitch | The Society of Phineas

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s