The folly of the celibate boyfriend

When it comes to the recent invention of the concept of boyfriend, the most absurd incarnation of the concept is the form nearly all modern conservative Christians eagerly embrace;  the celibate boyfriend.  The near universal and enthusiastic acceptance of this idea by Christians is fascinating because it is entirely unbiblical.  Christians seem to have convinced themselves that it is biblical however, since it doesn’t involve sex.  With their adoption of the celibate boyfriend template, the new devout Christian path to marriage typically looks like:

The chaste boyfriend offers virginal (or “re”virginal) Christian women two of the three benefits boyfriends provide to their nonvirginal peers.  While they aren’t getting sex, they receive the romance/love as well as the status which comes with having a boyfriend.  Interestingly this new creation is the perfect opposite of another recent invention, the friend with benefits.  While friends with benefits receive sex without love, romance, or the status which comes with investment, celibate boyfriends get to offer love and investment without receiving sex.

Not surprisingly most men aren’t anxious to sign up for such an arrangement.  This is the subject of periodic shaming and hand wringing, as we’ve seen recently with the media coverage of Olympic runner Lolo Jones.  The headline by People tells us:  Olympian Lolo Jones: Being a Virgin Hinders Finding a Boyfriend.  Likewise CBS has a story titled Lolo Jones Admits Trouble Keeping Boyfriends Because of her Virginity.  Note the shaming offered at the very end of the clip:

Interestingly Lolo never actually uses the term boyfriend in the interview, so it isn’t clear if this is actually what she is looking for.  From the short soundbite it sounds like she may instead be looking for a husband.

Either way this leaves the question;  why would men want to sign up for the role of celibate boyfriend?  This is a role which requires the man to be exclusive to the woman without receiving sex or a promise of marriage, and it isn’t even biblical.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Choice Addiction, Finding a Spouse, Foolishness. Bookmark the permalink.

462 Responses to The folly of the celibate boyfriend

  1. So then what is biblical?

  2. deti says:

    Dalrock:

    This:

    “The chaste boyfriend offers virginal (or “re”virginal) Christian women two of the three benefits boyfriends provide to their nonvirginal peers. While they aren’t getting sex, they receive the romance/love as well as the status which comes with having a boyfriend.”

    isn’t entirely clear to me.

    Are you talking here about boyfriends to Christian women who are nonvirgins, where the BF is not having sex with his nonvirginal Christian GF? The kind of situation in which she wants “to do it the right way this time, and save myself for marriage because I’m a born again virgin”?

    Or are you simply talking about BFs and GFs not having sex with each other?

  3. Jim says:

    That concept worked back in the day with old customs and young marriages. But the competition from sluts and carousel riders might sadly force even virgins into spinsterhood. Now that’s incredible.

  4. ballista74 says:

    You point out rightly that there is no such thing as a boyfriend until recent times (along with friends with benefits). I believe much of this has to do with the feminist changes in the marriage market, so they can be supported in their hypergamy.

    It is correct as well that the whole idea of the boyfriend (or girlfriend) is not Biblical. You just can’t find a Scripture which clearly points one out. I know I’ve been convicted on this one, as well as many women, and hopefully many men. Speaking to the ladies here that want to be Christian (but change the terms and it applies to us men, too), you aren’t going to be honored in God if you aren’t seeking a husband from the start with a genuine heart. As Jesus says, ask and it will be given, seek you will find, knock and the door will be opened (Matt 7:7-12). The precondition is honoring God in everything you do. That means being a virgin as Lolo Jones is and not looking for hookups, but it also means making a clear plan towards a commitment to marriage by searching (in other words, every man you meet is a marriage prospect, not a temporary dalliance) and not holding to your career and dallying around with men as boyfriends or friends with benefits or whatever.

    Looking to Miss Jones as an example, if she has really been looking for a husband all this time who will respect her virginity, I do feel for her. In fact, she can weed out a lot of men from the start by putting the husband goal out there. But if she’s been holding her Olympic “career” (they do spend a lot of time in training) in stead of her husband search (again assuming), she only has herself to blame. If she is not being graceful with the men she meets, she only has herself to blame. The thing of being celibate (to bring it back to Dalrock’s comments) is that usually the time frame involved to having sex within marriage is much shorter if the market is filled with commitment minded people. Unfortunately it’s not. The fact is, being God honoring is not going to find you a husband or wife too quickly if at all. Sad but true.

  5. ballista74 says:

    Oh and Dalrock, embedding is disabled on the video…

  6. Dalrock says:

    Deti,

    I’m not sure I understand your question. I’m talking about boyfriend/girlfriends, not engaged couples. However, engagement now seems at times to be stretched to the point of actually being boyfriend/girlfriend.

    @Jim

    That concept worked back in the day with old customs and young marriages. But the competition from sluts and carousel riders might sadly force even virgins into spinsterhood. Now that’s incredible.

    Except that this is a very new concept. It didn’t work with the old customs because it isn’t an old custom.

  7. Lavazza says:

    I can’t find the right quote or a YouTube clip, but this episode of 2 1/2 covers this topic.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0735158/

  8. deti says:

    Obviously the celibate BF is a remnant of courtship. Courting was the time honored ritual in which the man approached the woman’s family, specifically her father, and asked for permission to court her. She had to agree, but no courting happened unless dad agreed too. Generally, the two fathers – his and hers – agreed to the courtship. The purpose of courting was not just dating or looking for a good time; but to determine their compatibility for marriage. After a short courtship, each were to decide if they wanted marriage. If they did, they got engaged. If not, they ended the courtship and moved on.

    There wasn’t a long courtship. It would be a few months, no more. The woman didn’t have a lot of time, so she was pressured to make a decision on the boy or cut him loose. He was pressured to find out quickly if he liked her enough to marry her because either marriage or ending the courtship was the respectful thing to do. THere was no sex, and sometimes there were chaperones.

    This was also a time in the US of no compulsory education, so it was not uncommon for girls of 15 or 16 to court and marry boys age 18, 19 or 20.

    Courting gave way to more female autonomy in mate selection, which led to modern dating. The woman could date whom she wanted without her father’s permission, but she often resisted sex. Of course, there were fewer chaperones, so sex wasn’t always out of the question.

  9. Dalrock says:

    @Ballista74

    The thing of being celibate (to bring it back to Dalrock’s comments) is that usually the time frame involved to having sex within marriage is much shorter if the market is filled with commitment minded people. Unfortunately it’s not. The fact is, being God honoring is not going to find you a husband or wife too quickly if at all. Sad but true.

    The thing is the whole point of the concept of boyfriend is to draw the process of finding a husband out, perhaps indefinitely.

  10. deti says:

    Dalrock:

    Here’s where I’m not clear (Capitalization added for emphasis):

    “The chaste boyfriend offers virginal (or “re”virginal) Christian women two of the three benefits boyfriends provide TO THEIR NONVIRGINAL PEERS:”

    Are you talking here about BFs and GFs who aren’t having sex? Or BFs and GFs who ARE having sex? Or both?

    [D: Sorry. I get it now. I was making a comparison with the rest of society, where bf and gf typically are having sex. More specifically, I was comparing it with the model I presented in the post last week.]

  11. deti says:

    Dalrock:

    OK, well, obviously it must be about BFs and GFs who aren’t having sex. Heh.

  12. Opus says:

    In the days when I read The Washington Post over breakfast, I enjoyed the column of Miss Manners; and this is what she advised young men: You are neither married nor engaged and thus you are free to do what you want, and you should enjoy yourself and no one has the right to start making demands on you. I think (and thought) that she was right. She clearly did not believe in Boyfriends.

    The celibate boyfriend is thus being prick-teased. This of course is entirely separate from the concept of wooing a woman with the intention (unspoken or otherwise) of wedlock. The Boyfriend with benefits however can easily be sucked into a situation as difficult to escape from as from a black hole – feeling, the way men do, an obligation – a false one, to the woman, caused by the release of Oxytocin. In short: avoid being a boyfriend. It may be acceptable (but dangerous) for Adolescents – say aged between 14 and 21 – but after that men should be free and unfettered.

    I once knew a woman, the daughter of a medical doctor – somewhat overweight – who acquired a blue-collar boyfriend (desperation meeting unattractiveness). She remained a virgin until marriage – and deliberately kept him panting until then – which doubtless caused him to over-rate her worth – she was fat. I hope they found it worthwhile. I doubt it.

    Of course, if she jumps into bed with you on the first night what else are to assume, but slut (or slut in training): no matter how she dresses it up, that is what it is – yet she still has no right to demand anything from you or you from her.

  13. HeligKo says:

    Truth is she won’t find a man outside the world of athletes that will put up with her for more than a roll in the hay. Most 30 year old men can’t jump a hurdle once, and aren’t going to beat her times. She has chosen a path that gives her a physical prowess that will turn most men off, because they can’t match it. A guy like Tebow is where she will find what she is looking for, but the schedules will make that almost impossible. There is a reason most track and swim athletes are single. The training schedules and meet schedules are murder. She has chosen career over marriage, whether she wants to admit it or not.

  14. Jim says:

    The concept of marrying a virgin woman is an old custom. The concept of short term dating a virgin women for marriage is as well. Like as in arranged marriages or in close knit communities where labels and reputations are important.

    You make the point that she should be advertising for a husband instead of an accessory BF and it is valid. But so is mine. That virgin women can actually end up in spinsterhood is an incredible situation to find modern society in. And it’s through no fault of men either.

  15. deti says:

    There was some vestiges of “courtship” left over when I was in high school in the mid 1980s and then in college in the late 1980s — at least in flyover country where I live. I started “going steady” with this girl freshman year. Her dad telephoned my dad about it, just to let each other know what was going on with us. They knew each other so it was a short conversation.

    Same thing happened when I started dating my First College Girlfriend within a month of arriving on campus. Once again, FCG’s dad got our home phone number from her and telephoned my dad, to introduce our families and to find out a little more about me. We were from different cities and of course our families didn’t know each other.

  16. Anonymous Reader says:

    Put this way, Dalrock, the boyfriend – celibate or not – is simply a piece of the larger picture: hyper-extended, effectively endless courtship coupled with the illusion of endless choice, enabling a female human’s (girl, later women) unconstrained hypergamy to just wallow in pleasant “good times” like a pig in a huge mud flat.

    Just as modern society now extends “adolescence” down to the age of 10 and up to the age of, what, 25 now? This model extends the time of “being courted/chased/catered to” down to 10 and up to the 60′s. As the leading edge boomers age, I’m sure that we’ll see “boyfriends” of 70+ in nursing homes (if that isn’t true already). And as women are the gatekeepers of sex even in our wonderful sex-pozzie, lib-uh-rated era, some of those must be kept celibate just, y’know, because it’s better that way for herself.

    So what it boils down to is this: endless expansion of choices to women, endless expansion of responsibilities to men. And someone refresh me, where in the Bible this is taught?

  17. HeligKo says:

    As for the celibate boyfriend. This is just a feeder for the EAP problem. She gets wined and dined, and romanced. He gets the bill. If this is how you have courted, then of course she will expect it to get even better in marriage. If there is no reciprocity in the relationship during courting, there should be no expectation of it after marriage. I have been this guy, and guess what, she believed the romance should continue and there was no tie to her doing anything for me including having sex. She will stay at home, and have a maid. She won’t fix your family dinners, and she will feel put out by the smallest thing. She is a princess after all. I am done with so called christian women. Feminism has broken them worse than the rest.

  18. Dalrock says:

    @David Castellani

    So then what is biblical?

    Not playing around in the margins. As Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 7; if you burn with passion, marry and have regular sex with your spouse. Don’t create a place for sexual temptation.

  19. Cane Caldo says:

    I keep waiting for Aunt Haley to weigh in on these. When I used to read her blog regularly, I remember being shocked that she pooh-pooh’d the Christian courtship model (such as Josh McDowell’s movement a few years back), in favor of dating.

  20. TB says:

    Do I have to be the one to say it? OK, I’ll say it. She’s a pretty girl, but as soon as she starts sprinting and straining, she looks repellant.

  21. I Art Laughing says:

    Dalrock, I think this flow chart puts the lie to the notion that the boyfriend thing works at all. I read a book years ago about “courtship” that had some interesting thoughts about removing the ridiculous boyfriend stage. There should be a network around our young people that encourages finding compatible spousal matches and then speeding them towards the marriage bed. Unfortunately, our culture has decayed to the point that this is nearly an impossibility.

    I don’t see any suitable replacements, so what we seem to be left with is “chastity” until 35 and marriage model. Who is preparing our young men for that? The “Church” certainly isn’t, they’re still teaching that a man must get married in order to fulfill his highest value. Maybe we could start some Monastaries somewhere?

  22. Anonymous Reader says:

    Wow, Deti, I’m impressed. I thought that cultural artifacts like that were dead back in the late 70′s to early 80′s across the country, not just only in the urban areas. Of course that sort of thing is exactly what gets feminists panties in a bunch; fathers contacting other fathers in order to hem in the sexual choices of women (it also limits men’s choices but that is of no interest to feminists). It would be denounced as a manifestation of Devil Patriarchy and for once, that would actually be an accurate statement.

    Of course, the fact that such actions make it a bit less likely for a young woman to be pumped and dumped, and therefore while they affect her “choice” negatively are actually contributing to her long term happiness would not matter. Feminism often resembles a 2-year old child screeching to any adult in earshot You’re not the boss of me!. It’s not about happiness, nor about what preserves a society, it’s about what any given woman wants, when she wants it.

  23. deti says:

    A few more thoughts on this:

    1. The idea of the celibate BF plays into the woman’s frame that she should have what she wants. If she wants a BF to have sex with, then she should have that. But if she wants a BF who will wait until marriage to have sex, then she is entitled to that.

    2. When I was in college in the late 1980s, there were still pockets of resistance to hookup culture. There were still women who were outwardly saving themselves for marriage, or at least avoiding P in V sex before marriage. There were men who were willing to forego P in V as long as they were getting something. The idea was that she was still a virgin when she married if her BF didn’t work out.

    3. Twenty five years ago in the college scene, the only men seeking chastity while dating were very religious men. All other men were looking for sex any way they could get it, either with a ONS or a GF. Most could not pull serial ONSs so they got into relationships, trading exclusivity for ever-escalating sexual involvement. But, as opus pointed out above, this was treacherous for both men and women. The sex bonded them, leading to relationships staying together much longer than they should have. Ending a relationship that really should have ended became much more difficult and more painful. Men wracked with guilt; women now starting to rack up partner counts and alpha imprinting.

  24. Suz says:

    *sigh*
    I used to love Miss Manners. Her brand of chivalry demanded that women do their part. Even when it included politely ignoring foolish mistakes, there was an expectation of gratitude – it was never meant to be taken for granted. OT, I know. Sorry…

  25. Anonymous Reader says:

    TB, she may not look good to you when running, but I doubt you, or I, or anyone else on this comment stream are what she has in mind.

    The problem, as was pointed out up thread, for any 20-something Olympic quality woman athlete is the same as it ever was: hypergamy. An Olympic-class sprinter wants a man she can look up to, in her hindbrain. He probably should be as athletic as she is, but in a different sport. The other model would be a seriously powerful Alpha man from the business world – a floor trader, or some other really intense personality who could do things she can’t hope to touch, but in a different venue from sport.

    I’m not surprised that in the world she inhabits, men are put off by her virginity and desire to not have intercourse until marriage. Athletic men have a higher amount of testosterone circulating, and the last two or three Olympics have included medical centers with buckets full of condoms to hand out to the athletes. It’s the norm, now, in Olympic sport to screw like bunnies endlessly. She’d be better off fishing for a husband in a different pool than the sporting world. IMO.

  26. bskillet81 says:

    This is a role which requires the man to be exclusive to the woman without receiving sex or a promise of marriage, and it isn’t even biblical.

    I notice you left out whether the woman is remaining celibate and exclusive, or not. Specifically, 1) Does she still have her V card? Most likely not. If she’s a Churchian, she maybe said a sinner’s prayer and pretends she got a replacement V card from her personal Jesus. 2) Does she remain chaste during the relationship the same way her boyfriend does, or is she getting a little something-something on the side? Given the fact that Churchian women are raised to believe they are never really morally accountable for their actions, and she can always get a new replacement V card whenever she wants, AND she’s entitled to a virgin BF/husband even if she isn’t a virgin, AND she’s entitled to a marriage ring the moment she decides she wants one, should we assume she is remaining chaste?

    What reason would she have? Her personal Jesus will give her whatever she wants (“God has the perfect man for you”) regardless of her actions.

  27. TB says:

    AR – I’m sure that’s true. But I think there’s more to be unpacked there. Female super-athleticism is like female success in business; it inflates the woman’s self-esteem and (through hypergamy) narrows her “valid” mate choices, but it does nothing to actually make her more attractive to men.

    Not that fitness and health aren’t attractive, of course they are. But the law of diminishing returns for athleticism vis a vis sexual attractiveness hits fast for women. Past a certain point, athleticism is either neutral or a negative. Which is why WNBA players don’t have male groupies.

  28. Mark says:

    Most guys who sign up for the role of celibate boyfriend are probably secretly hoping it will eventually lead to sex. They are somewhat similar to what is known in game terminology as the “beta orbiter”. I know middle aged women who complain about how they had plenty of male friends in college but can only find guys now who want a relationship that includes sex and they just don’t understand why. What they really had in college were probably mostly naive beta orbiters. As most beta guys get older and wiser, they realize being the nice guy friend to a female is a relationship which is exploitive and benefits the female more than them and they become more and more reluctant to get into that type of relationship.

  29. ballista74 says:

    @Dalrock

    The thing is the whole point of the concept of boyfriend is to draw the process of finding a husband out, perhaps indefinitely.

    Exactly as I was saying. It’s an invention to allow women (and men too, later) a way out of having to commit to the idea of Biblical marriage. But the boyfriend/girlfriend thing was indeed invented more for women. In other words, since they don’t have to commit to any one man, they can feed their hypergamy until the day they die. Of course later on, the whole idea of commitment was removed from marriage to give hypergamy means to run its course there.

    As I stated in what you quoted, having to commit to any one person will make the time anyone is celibate much shorter if that commitment is honored. In fact, I see the commitment card and the virginity card inextricably linked.

    But I don’t throw out the celibate card altogether as it seems is happening here. The boyfriend part is what is unbiblical, not the “no fornication” part.

  30. Cane Caldo says:

    I read a book years ago about “courtship” that had some interesting thoughts about removing the ridiculous boyfriend stage. There should be a network around our young people that encourages finding compatible spousal matches and then speeding them towards the marriage bed. Unfortunately, our culture has decayed to the point that this is nearly an impossibility.

    Yes. Such as–and I’m spitballing here–a church.

    Ahem.

  31. deti says:

    ” *** why would men want to sign up for the role of celibate boyfriend? This is a role which requires the man to be exclusive to the woman without receiving sex or a promise of marriage, and it isn’t even biblical.”

    Good point, but I’d take it a step further. He is exclusive to her, and she to him. They aren’t having sex with each other, or with other people.

    Then — what exactly is the point, unless they are seriously examining each other for marriage? She gets status of having a BF out of the deal. He gets …. nothing. In all but the most extreme circumstances, in this SMP his status is not elevated one iota because he has an exclusive GF he’s not sexing. The only way his status is raised is if he is an average Joe dating an extremely high status woman, like…. Lolo Jones. Now typically the only way a man can date a high status woman is if he is high status himself. But in today’s SMP, the Lolo Joneses of this world probably cannot date the high status man she really wants (and could pull if she were willing to sex him). High status men won’t wait for marriage to sex ANY woman, even high status women. So she will have to date down. So in this messed up SMP, her demand for chastity before marriage actually works against her. Her chastity actually lowers her value.

  32. Anonymous Reader says:

    TB, understood. Of course, even if WNBA players did have groupies, they would all but certainly be less athletic than the women – and thus the women would be repelled by them.

  33. van Rooinek says:

    Obviously the celibate BF is a remnant of courtship….There wasn’t a long courtship. It would be a few months, no more. The woman didn’t have a lot of time, so she was pressured to make a decision on the boy or cut him loose. He was pressured to find out quickly if he liked her enough to marry her because either marriage or ending the courtship was the respectful thing to do. THere was no sex, and sometimes there were chaperones.

    If the “the celibate BF is a remnant of courtship”, then the concept should be HONORED, not dismissed.

    However, in the forniculture, the lack of sexual pressure to “marry or move on” allows people to be “boyfriend/girlfriend” for years on end, without any movement toward marriage. To “Christianize” this antiChristian form of romance, by simply taking the sex out of it (without making any other changes), totally misses the point. Because in the long run, you CAN’T keep sex out of it, and in fact, nobody wants to! All dating, all courting, alll romance is SUPPOSED to lead to sex, eventually — that’s the whole fucking point of it!!! That “celibate Christian boyfriend” badly wants to have sex with her, eventually. So why delay? Put a ring on it, and enjoy. Otherwise, despite your best intentions, you’ll eventually fall into sin.

    If she doesn’t want to get married for many years (due to career aspirations, “travel”, or whatever other useless crap she’s worried about), then she should cut him loose and let him marry someone else, instead of keeping him around for her own emotional gratification at the price of his sexual torment. Fish or cut bait. Marry or move on. “Boyfriend/girlfriend” is an exploratory, temporary status, it must NOT be a permanent or quasi permanent “relationship” as it is among the heathens.

    The clumsy attempt at courtship revival inspired by IKDG/Joshua Harris et al., had absolutely disastrous effects on a lot of people’s marriage quests — I’m convinced that book kept a lot of people single who shouldn’t have been — but deep down inside it did have this small core of truth.

  34. Höllenhund says:

    “Being a Virgin Hinders Finding a Boyfriend”

    Well, maybe I’m just too cynical, but I think this headline could’ve come straight from the Onion News Network.

  35. Anonymous Reader says:

    Deti, you are correct that in the current SMP/MMP the celibate boyfriend status benefits the woman and does nothing for the man. And? So? Is that not the general requirement for all male-female relationships in the modern world; that she receive the benefits she wants, and if he gets nothing it doesn’t matter one whit?

    Therefore, isn’t the celibate boyfriend simply a Churchian variation on the standard feminist “women have choices ,men have responsibilities” mindset?

  36. All I have to contribute is that this is fascinating.
    I can’t think of any boyfriends and girlfriends in the Bible, but I’d also never noticed that.

  37. van Rooinek says:

    Most guys who sign up for the role of celibate boyfriend are probably secretly hoping it will eventually lead to sex. They are somewhat similar to what is known in game terminology as the “beta orbiter”.

    Disagree totally. You’re confusing two unrelated concepts. There is a great gulf fixed between boyfriendhood, and the friendzone. Beta orbiters are never, never taken on as boyfriends, not even as celibate Christian boyfriends by celibate Christian women.

    The boyfriend/girlfriend relationship, even if it is celibate FOR NOW, always-always-always has a sexual dynamic, a sexual chemistry, which can eventually lead, if everything else works out, to marriage. Whereas the beta orbiter, is the prescisely that sort of guy, that the woman will never marry, no never, not in this age, nor in the age to come.

  38. deti says:

    ” *** the whole point of the concept of boyfriend is to draw the process of finding a husband out, perhaps indefinitely.”

    True, for many reasons. Both men and women were going to college and focusing on studies. The CW is that women especially need to focus on studies and not learning how to be wives. They are in close proximity to many, many new men on a college campus and want to keep their options open. They are around men in their own age group and would probably be more suited to older men for marriage; but focusing on a rigorous (heh) college curriculum leaves little time for socializing with men in their 20s looking for wives.

  39. Anonymous Reader says:

    I’m thinking of a couple of college undergraduates I knew 2 years back. They were “boyfriend/girlfriend” for some period of time, and then announced at the end of a semester their intention to marry 1 year later. I thought a 1 year engagement was quite a throwback, however there was at least one unmarried mother in one of the families, so perhaps it was a deliberate statement on their part to prove no shotguns were involved in their wedding. I can see a man of 23 keeping his sex drive under control but only if there is a deadline out there in a reasonable length of time.

  40. Joe Sheehy says:

    Deti, a 29 year old woman who’s masculinized by pursuing olympic medals has a low marriage market value for any man with common sense. Even a lowly man. As others have said, she made her bed, now she must lie in it. Although, in all likelihood, she could easily find a husband if she really wanted one.

  41. van Rooinek says:

    I can’t think of any boyfriends and girlfriends in the Bible, but I’d also never noticed that.

    Blblical romance always was focused on moving toward marriage. They didn’t do romance for romance’s sake, it was always goal directed… the goal being sex.

    For that matter, I can’t even recall off the top of my head, of a biblical romance that was terminated – but that may only be, because winners write the history. Who knows how many men came a calling to Laban’s tent, unsuccessfully seeking Rachel’s hand, before Isaac showed up?

  42. Opus says:

    @deti

    For once I believe you are mistaken.

    Allow me to explain: if you are in a celibate relationship with a woman, and that relationship is exclusive, you are a man who has a woman (and the hotter the woman the better). Even if you are not having sex, other women will see that you are a man who can acquire the exclusive attentions of a desirable women. This is very attractive to other women who will doubtless want to steal you. You are thus not a loser who no woman will go near. If you are not convinced, remind yourself what happens when you walk into a Bar with a good-looking girl – every woman looks!

    I am not suggesting that it is any way a desirable relationship, and I would hate it myself, but, I can see a future Hollywood comedy with that as the basis where our hero uses the woman to get close to a woman he is interested in. He can’t approach her direct because of something that happened years ago and she thinks he is a total jerk and loser. She thus thinks he has a higher SMV than his celibate status (unknown to her) will give him. There will be some convoluted reason why woman one wants to date him, and he will actually be very rich (secretly). [Can I have a job Mr Goldwyn?] As it is Hollywood, in the end he will stay with the first woman when she realises that yes he is THE ONE and they marry. Aaaaaah.

  43. deti says:

    “a 29 year old woman who’s masculinized by pursuing olympic medals has a low marriage market value for any man with common sense. Even a lowly man.”

    I disagree. Lolo Jones has a low SMV because she has publicly said no sex before marriage. Her MMV paradoxically is higher than her SMV because of her virginity. However, her hypergamy will make it difficult for her to find anyone because she’s a famous world-class athlete, which gives her high status. So in this SMP her decisions and her nature work at cross-purposes.

  44. ballista74 says:

    Then — what exactly is the point, unless they are seriously examining each other for marriage? She gets status of having a BF out of the deal. He gets …. nothing.

    I’ve been thinking about the ideas behind my last post, and specifically this. The Biblical model for these things involves a goal for marriage (i.e. commitment), not for anything else. But in changing this, most all feminist inventions leave the man on the short end of the stick. Why is this?

    In thinking about the concepts above, I’m referring to the removal of any need of a woman to play her commitment card into anything, along with the removal of any societal consequences upon the woman for not doing this. My thinking is on the value of the representative card analogy. I’m thinking the most valuable one the woman holds is the commitment card (*), while the most valuable one the man holds is the virginity card, and these are the ones that are traded in a true Biblical marriage. This has always been so, since a woman could easily marry another or easily work these days. In essence, society makes it so she doesn’t have to commit. Society feeds her hypergamy, but punishes polygamy. This is because a man can not withhold his virginity card as easily without consequences.

    Now as I mentioned, they are linked, so it should be no surprise that virginity is falling by the way side. If a woman isn’t going to play her commitment card with him, what reason does a man have to play his virginity card with her? This is why fornication has risen (and has become accepted in some circles), coincidentally because all commitment has been removed with marriage, even within the church.

    (*) – to bring this back to Lolo Jones specifically, not playing her virginity card really is irrelevant in the grand scheme of her boyfriend/marriage search. The real important card in her deck (the commitment one) when it comes to marriage has already been played on her Olympic “career”. So holding her virginity card really has no meaning when it comes to Biblical marriage without playing her commitment card in the same place. So in the end, while I hope she marries, she probably won’t if she can’t give up the things her commitment card got her.

  45. Women have boyfriends and girlfriends. If you’re not fucking her, you’re her girlfriend.

    Dal, what you’re describing here is the ‘Christian Kosher’ version of The Surrogate Boyfriend:
    https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/the-surrogate-boyfriend/

    Darren was playing surrogate boyfriend, voluntarily accepting and internalizing all of the responsibilities and accountabilities of being a woman’s exclusive, monogamous partner with no expectation of reciprocating intimacy or sexuality. It is the ideal situation for a woman in the same manner a Booty Call is for a man – all sex with no expectations of monogamy, commitment or emotional investment.

    Maintaining a series of surrogate boyfriends is one of the most directly observable manifestations of women’s sexual pluralism.

    Also:
    https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/playing-friends/

    [D: Thats funny how close we are thinking on this. What I called a friend with benefits, you called a booty call. Same same.]

  46. ballista74 says:

    I can’t think of any boyfriends and girlfriends in the Bible, but I’d also never noticed that.

    There aren’t, because the goal is always a commitment to marriage, not a temporary situation (which what boyfriend/girlfriend entails). If there’s any romantic relationship involved in Scripture, the intention was that it always led to marriage, and this is God’s goal as well. To be Biblical, you just don’t go into things without that goal in mind. As someone once told me (who’s much older than me and probably Dalrock too), you don’t go ask God for a girlfriend, you go ask Him for a wife. Of course, he grew up when things were still as they were meant to be, not as the feminists remade them into.

  47. Firepower says:

    Honestly, WTF is up with all you Xhristians STILL arguing over what Jesus didn’t say
    versus what Paul DID.

    Was Paul, the son of god?

  48. van Rooinek says:

    “Boyfriend/girlfriend” is an exploratory, temporary status, it must NOT be a permanent or quasi permanent “relationship” as it is among the heathens.

    Blblical romance always was focused on moving toward marriage. They didn’t do romance for romance’s sake, it was always goal directed

    Okay…. so…. here’s a thought. In 1950 the words “boyfriend” and “girlfriend” were innocent; often they referred to chaste young people who married as soon as they graduated, or as soon as he got home from the military. But today, the forniculture has tainted these words, to the point where sex is all-but-assumed, and Christians (or at least, real practicing Christians) often need to add disclaimers when referring to someone as their boyfriend or girlfriend, lest sexual assumption be made. Circumlocutions such as, “this is the girl I’m dating”, or ” this is the guy who’s courting me”, eventually get distilled back down to “girlfriend” or “boyfriend”.

    So we need a new word(s). A word that describes the exploratory, temporary status. Not too hard to pronounce, not too many syllables (one or two is preferred for English speakers). We can borrow it from another language, or invent it.

    “Amour” or “paramour” don’t work because they often connote illicitness. “Inamorata” sometimes is used to describe illicit relationships as well.

    “Suitor” literally means, a man who pursues a woman with marital intent, so it would be perfect except for its old-fashionedness. Also, you need another word for the girl, because “suitee” is too close to a Hindi word that means something quite horrible.

    “Courter” might work, except that the “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” disaster has turned a lot of Christians off on that word. (Myself included)

    Greek “mnistiras” (suitor), sounds too much like “mistress!”

    Anyone here know the Hebrew?

  49. greyghost says:

    I don’t get this 1 year engagement stuff. If you are going to get married just do it and get down to business on planning a long term future.

  50. operatingomega says:

    When I was 18 and in my Senior year of a private Christian school, I remember sitting in a mandatory “Family Studies” class (no resentment, it had a great teacher and was interesting). The purpose of the class was to educate us regarding the Christian frame of marriage.

    It was my birthday and we had the topic of celibacy going, so the teacher mentioned that we would, instead of a birthday, have a celibacy celebration.

    The class laughs.

    And not because it was an amusing turn of phrase or because I had stated that I was waiting for marriage. It was because I didn’t get it. I “actually believed” what they were teaching in those years and years of paid-for Bible classes and Chapel meetings. No, everyone was having sex and disregarding all of these morals and ethics that were bought and paid for at great price just for their ass to be sitting in that chair and not some public school hellhole (protip: I grew up in an area with horrendous public schools).

    I remember looking around at the faces of all my peers in that room and seeing the looks of condescension, pity, and some even shock or surprise. I knew from that moment forward that Christianity is full of people who make their own rules, and oftentimes to do nothing more than to accommodate themselves. Life and experience since then has proven this time and time again. It’s nowhere as innocent as God’s message being lost in translation – it’s straightforward manipulation of meaning in order to have your own personal version of the rules that suits your taste.

    But who am I to judge? I believe that each individual’s relationship with God is personal. That said, to some, God is less significant than their toenail.

    It would take me several years of resisting College indoctrination until I realized that I had become an Agnostic, albeit one with a deep respect for religion.

    At almost 28, still a virgin though. I’m taking this all the way just for kicks.

  51. Dalrock says:

    @Van Rooinek

    Okay…. so…. here’s a thought. In 1950 the words “boyfriend” and “girlfriend” were innocent; often they referred to chaste young people who married as soon as they graduated, or as soon as he got home from the military. But today, the forniculture has tainted these words, to the point where sex is all-but-assumed, and Christians (or at least, real practicing Christians) often need to add disclaimers when referring to someone as their boyfriend or girlfriend, lest sexual assumption be made.

    The problem isn’t just about sex. This is my point in the post. The problem is twofold:

    1) Adding an extra layer in the choice process. This is subtle because when most people consider it they are thinking boyfriend is a sort of fiancé light, etc. The reality is by keeping it informal by definition you introduce the space for multiple boyfriends before choosing the fiancé. This is fundamental to the process. If you are looking for a term for a couple who has promised to marry once they can, you don’t need to invent one.
    2) Greatly stringing out the process both via #1 above and extending the term of “pre-fiancé” or even fiancé. Darwin Catholic proposed in his “How to marry a nice girl” that young couples chastely date for 4 years, for example.

  52. Cane Caldo says:

    @Craig Himself

    I can’t think of any boyfriends and girlfriends in the Bible, but I’d also never noticed that.

    You won’t find any teenagers either.

    @Firepower

    Honestly, WTF is up with all you Xhristians STILL arguing over what Jesus didn’t say
    versus what Paul DID.

    Was Paul, the son of god?

    John 1:1

    And it’s “Xians”.

  53. Sunshine says:

    This is all extremely interesting to me. There has been a slight resurgence of an interest in the older form of courtship, especially among families that are what has sometimes been called “quiver-full” (no birth control, usually a lot of children, usually home-schooled). Doug Wilson from Vision Forum has been a very vocal proponent of this. It’s what my husband and I would ultimately like for our five daughters, but the problem is finding other sympatico families.

  54. Mark says:

    “Disagree totally. You’re confusing two unrelated concepts. There is a great gulf fixed between boyfriendhood and the friendzone.”

    I don’t disagree with what you say. I was merely referring to the exploitive nature of both relationships, not trying to equate them. Both of these types of relationships have become more common because of the modern day long lag time between sexual maturity and marriage. Women have filled this time period with having sexual flings with alpha males, using greater betas as no sex “boyfriends” and putting lesser betas into the friendzone. Is this extended period of both young males and females staying in school and being nonproductive into their mid-twenties only a temporary aberration in history and are we on the way to being not able to afford it again in the future? I think we may be headed for more young men skipping college and learning a trade where they can support themselves and more young women giving up those useless liberal arts degrees and getting married at a younger age.

  55. Celibate boyfriends, also known as ‘beta male orbiters’. How is it in any way surprising that the Barlow Girls have also discovered the usefulness of keeping guys in a perpetual state of blue-balled qualification? Couch the dynamic in secularly inspired doctrines adopted by Churchianity and you have a recipe for feminine primacy and sexual selection dominance in a pretty little package with a shiny crucifix necklace around her throat.

    I think it’s patently ridiculous to expect young men to remain celibate until they mature into ‘marriageable’ men, yes, even self-described Christian men. I know that’s not scriptural, but we’re living in an era when the personal investment of time, dedication and persistent effort necessary to optimize a Man’s potential is at its longest and most intense.

    The concepts and social implications of courtship or marriage that existed in prior epochs is virtually unrecognizable from that of other eras. Even in biblical times, marriage was never a constant, social contract of monogamy between a man and a woman. In the old testament there are many instances where “men of god” could not only take multiple wives, but could also bang their maid-servants – and often at the willing behest of their wives (Sarah to Abraham, or Jacob’s wives offering their maid-servants to him for instance). All of this polygamy was common practice right up until the middle ages in Europe, where the feminine advent of courtly love (the origin of the word ‘courtship’) and monogamy in marriage took precedent.

    Since then, monogamous marriage has been a feminine imperative to the point that any prior iteration of polygamous marriage had to be erased from history. And the best way to do that has always been to infer that God willed it to be that way. Father Abraham be damned, and King David – remember, the man of God who had the husband of a hot piece of ass he wanted to bang put to death after he saw her bathing? – that King David, the polygamist, was one of the sires of Christ. Lets not even discuss Tamar’s lineage.

    Even in the Bible, from the shift from the Old Testament to the New, we see a transition from ordained polygamy to ordained monogamy.

    So, to put things into perspective, we need to understand that marriage is a social institution that’s subject to cultural and societal shifts. The importance of commitment, trust and mutual respect was probably lost on many of the most powerful men of God in biblical times. However, then as now, the importance of tapping a LOT of ass in as socially acceptable a manner as possible was a very high priority for them. All that is easily demonstrable by the stories of the many tribes of Judah.

    I’m not trying to make a religious statement, but rather to put marriage into the proper perspective as being a social construct that has changed and evolved with religion over time. Being the Sultan with a harem of many wives, or a Chinese Emperor in the forbidden city may seem “perverted” by today’s sensibilities, but they were highly respect during their time. Marriage has changed over the course of history (and probably will again).

  56. Comment_Whatever says:
    why would men want to sign up for the role of celibate boyfriend? This is a role which requires the man to be exclusive to the woman without receiving sex or a promise of marriage, and it isn’t even biblical.

    Good point, but I’d take it a step further. He is exclusive to her, and she to him. They aren’t having sex with each other, or with other people.

    Often the point is their psycho parents are filled with ENVY here, that their children are young and pretty and if they marry will be having sex while young and pretty with a young and pretty spouse. So the parents have DEMANDED that their children delay marriage until “after college” or “after their job is X” or whatever. In the fathers case I’m sure sexual lust and jealousy for a younger version of his wife is involved. Oh yes, I just said exactly what you think I said.

    I know of one case in college where this was definitely the case, and one where it probably was. In neither case were the children looking. Now, given the difficulty of getting the worthless stupid child animal(s) to listen to the sagacious advice of their wise envy-filled parents, I can imagine the count would be much higher if parents could have their way always.

    NOTE:
    Those parents were giving a very fine example to all those who wished to mock religious people.

  57. van Rooinek says:

    The reality is by keeping it informal by definition you introduce the space for multiple boyfriends before choosing the fiancé. This is fundamental to the process.

    Well, YES. Even in the holiest, most Godly context, unless the girl marries the first boy that comes a-calling, then yes there WILL be multiple “suitors” before she finally picks one. That cannot be avoided. Likewise, the noy may not win the first girl (or may decide he doesn’t want the first girl) that he pursues.

    Even back in the old days, the girl didn’t necessarily marry the first one, and the guy didn’t necessarily succeed on his first try. So say the stories of my ancestors.

    My point is that if she goes through a serious of righteous “suitors” before choosing one, what should we call these temporary associations? If the words, “boyfriend” and “girlfriend” are too tainted by forniculture to be proper terms for chaste marital candidates, we need new words.

    If you are looking for a term for a couple who has promised to marry once they can, you don’t need to invent one.

    No, of course not. That word is “fiance”, and it is well understood by everyone. But you missed the point of my post: we need a better way oof describing the inbetween state, when the decision to marry has NOT been made yet…

    Think of Schrodinger’s cats. Put 2 Christian cats in a black box, and a quantum event may or may not occur that causes them to get engaged. If you open the box and the cats are engaged, then “fiance / fiancee” is the right term for them. If you open the box and the cats aren’t engaged, and don’t want to be, then they part ways and you don’t need a word to describe them. BUT my post was, what do you call the 2 cats when they are still in the box?

    Darwin Catholic proposed in his “How to marry a nice girl” that young couples chastely date for 4 years.

    That’s insane.

  58. van Rooinek says:

    my posts are vanishing.. why?

    [D: I'm not sure why, but I found several in the spam bin. Since they were dupes I only fished one of them out.]

  59. BlackCat says:

    Women have ‘girl’friends and ‘boy’friends.
    If a guy is spending a lot of time with a woman but not fucking her, he’s a ‘girl’friend.

  60. van Rooinek says:

    Sunshine: This is all extremely interesting to me….It’s what my husband and I would ultimately like for our five daughters, but the problem is finding other sympatico families.

    Indeed, the problem of finding other families of like mind, is a big one in terms of arranging courtship. Another problem is that the prohibition of dating, can severely hamper a young single’s chances of ever finding someone to court in the first place. You might want to read this: “Van Rooinek’s comment on courtship”

  61. TFH says:

    “The Celibate Boyfriend”

    If this is what the church is attempting to enforce, then it is no surprise that Sunday Morning Nightclub works sooooooo well.

    More and more, I find that the more betatude a woman is inflicted with, the more effective Game is on her. That is not very surprising, come to think of it.

  62. deti says:

    I think there’s also a certain amount of “wait for it” at play here; as in:

    “I want to wait for sex with you. You’re not like those other guys. You’re special. I want our first time to be special.”

    Or:

    “I’m a born again virgin. I just don’t want to rush into things. I really want to do it the right way this time. I hope you understand.”

    Cynicism, I know.

  63. TFH says:

    Either way this leaves the question; why would men want to sign up for the role of celibate boyfriend?

    So she can cuckold him, of course. With the full support of the church.

  64. BlackCat says:

    And, damn, I just saw Dal and Rollo beat me to it. Figures.

  65. Elspeth says:

    I agree completely with Van Rooinek’s comment at 2:10.

  66. an observer says:

    ‘Christian dating’ was packaged as a vetting step. We were encouraged to only date those we thought were spouse material. But it was always easy to suspect which couples were getting it on, and which couples were not. I saw time and time again dysfunctional relationships that were sustained, quite possibly becuase they were too sexual, and hence, pseudo bonded.

    The thing was, dating for year after year was torture if you were both a) convinced this one was a keeper, and b) waiting for the wedding. Although circumstances played a role, i thought then that women had the upper hand, waiting in hopes of better options. I knew not, then, of the differing smv curves.

    So, christians that agree to bend the rules can date endlessly because the v card has been traded.

    Pastor at the current church has occasionally commented on the lack of marriages. I strongly suspect that he won’t be interested in a game theory explanation, though. . .

  67. van Rooinek says:

    Okay, Dalrock: Four posts in a row have vanished. What have I done wrong?

  68. Anonymous Reader says:

    Opus
    Allow me to explain: if you are in a celibate relationship with a woman, and that relationship is exclusive, you are a man who has a woman (and the hotter the woman the better). Even if you are not having sex, other women will see that you are a man who can acquire the exclusive attentions of a desirable women. This is very attractive to other women who will doubtless want to steal you. You are thus not a loser who no woman will go near. If you are not convinced, remind yourself what happens when you walk into a Bar with a good-looking girl – every woman looks!

    But Opus, that is only useful if the man is a player. If he’s truly celibate then having other women drop IOI’s on him is only going to make his life worse, not better : he’s voluntarily chosen not to have any sex with his girlfriend, and now he has to choose to not have sex with other women who make themselves available. Social proofing is a great tool for PUA’s. It is of no use to a man who is trying to be faithful, save as a tool in married/LTR Game – two cases where the man is very much not celibate.

  69. Anonymous Reader says:

    greyghost
    I don’t get this 1 year engagement stuff. If you are going to get married just do it and get down to business on planning a long term future.

    In the example I mentioned, the woman was living with her parents while finishing her degree in a technical field. And again, I suspect that 1 year announcement was to prove clear intent, and no impulsiveness. People often do odd things because they are reacting to stupid things someone near and dear to them did, y’know.

  70. van Rooinek says:

    Sunshine says…There has been a slight resurgence of an interest in the older form of courtship… It’s what my husband and I would ultimately like for our five daughters, but the problem is finding other sympatico families

    Indeed, and this is an even bigger problem for singles from nonChristian families. Courtship for them can be virtually impossible to arrange, and even worse, without dating around widely, it may be impossible to find someone to court in the first place.

    I discuss courtship weaknesses elsewhere but this blog eats ever post that has a link — probably for good security reasons, I’m not complaining. So just google IKDG van Rooinek and scroll down to my comment.

  71. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    2) Greatly stringing out the process both via #1 above and extending the term of “pre-fiancé” or even fiancé. Darwin Catholic proposed in his “How to marry a nice girl” that young couples chastely date for 4 years, for example.

    That’s sadistic, gynocentric abuse of men. In my humble opinion. Which “tradition” did he pull that out of?

  72. Sunshine says:

    vR: “My point is that if she goes through a serious of righteous “suitors” before choosing one, what should we call these temporary associations? If the words, “boyfriend” and “girlfriend” are too tainted by forniculture to be proper terms for chaste marital candidates, we need new words.”

    And I would add that I agree with you for the need for such a term. If we accept the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity, which states that language drives how we conceptualize the world around us, then just creating a name for such a concept would have some degree of power to alter thought patterns.

  73. Alexander says:

    I suppose it works on the theory where a guy enters into a celibate relationship with the intent of jumping ship on the raised ‘status’ of the thing. But this strikes me as more wishful thinking than practical. If anything, I would think any immediate ‘bump’ in a guys reputation gets blown to hell when the truth is revealed (and the girl is going to reveal it). A guy gets mocked, not respected, when he lives with a hot roommate who is banging other dudes. Same principle applies.

  74. an observer says:

    Four years is way too long.

    Twelve to eighteen months, tops. Unless there extenuating circumstances, or the ust is getting regularly vanquished.

    For the same reason, engagements were always meant to be short. Having made the decision, only the organisation of a wedding remained.

    Again though, where temptation is not an issue because the v card was traded, engagements can be much longer as there is no longer any unresolved sexual tension to deal with.

  75. van Rooinek says:

    I suppose it works on the theory where a guy enters into a celibate relationship with the intent of jumping ship on the raised ‘status’ of the thing…….[but]….A guy gets mocked, not respected, when he lives with a hot [female] roommate who is banging other dudes

    Umm… in celibate Christian dating/courtship, living together before marriage is discouraged in the strongest possible terms. First of all, the likelihood is that you won’t stay celibate very long, having such easy and private access to each other. And secondly, even if you do stay celibate, nobody will believe it, which compromises your Christian witness (hence the command, “avoid even the appearance of evil”.)

  76. an observer says:

    Vr

    I agree on the noone believing it aspect.

  77. an observer says:

    On parental envy, Ronnie Barker once commented in open all hours that you don’t like to see your children having more fun than you did.

    Just another gem tucked into the scripting.a

  78. Opus says:

    @Anonymous Reader

    You are quite right, and I just could not imagine any man tolerating a situation where he was HAPPY to be celibate. Even so, I still think his SMV rises, even if he does nothing with it.

    It seems to me that he could be described as a non-beneficial (or non-stipendiary) boyfriend: he receives nothing by way of reward for his pains: in short, a boyfriend without benefits.

  79. P Ray says:

    @HeligKo
    “There is a reason most track and swim athletes are single. The training schedules and meet schedules are murder. She has chosen career over marriage, whether she wants to admit it or not.”
    Having mingled with the athletic set, I disagree.
    They can find Significant Others easily.
    But they will never make time for those they do not really appreciate.
    One swimmer from MSU that I knew, she had AT LEAST 4 boyfriends over the time she was at university.
    And all of these got to have sex.
    How do I know this? She got into a tiresome monologue of “men are only after one thing” … while I observed she had plenty of orbiters that she disregarded.

    @van Rooinek
    “That “celibate Christian(?) boyfriend” badly wants to have sex with her, eventually. So why delay? Put a ring on it, and enjoy. Otherwise, despite your best intentions, you’ll eventually fall into sin.”
    I put a question mark in because in my opinion, the measure of a man isn’t his religion: it’s whether he behaves with integrity. It’s also a false qualifier in that at any time a woman can claim “He’s not Christian (enough?) for me to be serious with him”, to break things up … whie she is no peach either.
    She twists it around to say that even the men who WILL wait … are somehow the wrong men.
    She’s right of course … as the previous paragraph I wrote implies, she’d never make a man she’s really attracted to, wait.
    Whether he can hold back given the opportunity, is something only he can answer (For myself, I can: marriage is too important to leave to the hind brain alone – HOWEVER … most women don’t seem to think that way (vagina tingle and all))

    “then she should cut him loose and let him marry someone else”
    In other words, the only guy she should date are the guys with options? The guys who consider her replaceable wouldn’t mind.
    The guys who think she’s irreplaceable, who cares about them?
    That’s one of the reason why the nice guys who get snubbed(or strung along) find it so easy to become raging players.
    “If my feelings towards her are true and genuine, YET I DON’T MATTER … I’m going to treat every woman after as disposable – since men and women are equal, if my feelings don’t matter … hers(future girlfriend) don’t too.”
    You can talk about how unjust this is, but consider that for every woman with the final guy she marries … he gets to hear her bitch about how terrible all the previous guys were. So he’s paying compensation for her past bad choices(that had nothing to do with him).

    @Opus says: June 12, 2012 at 1:01 pm
    You are spot on with that.
    Which is why women who previously “slutted around”(in quotes since I would definitely say women who string along suitors fall in this category even if no sex was involved because of the emotional see-saw — remember that women are affected by the breakdowns of relationships EVEN WITH GUYS THEY DON’T CONSIDER “THE ONE”) are scared to let the fallback guys out in the public eye (hence relationships through exclusive restaurants, only beach walks and hotel retreats for them):
    they don’t want him to benefit to gain the attention of other women, by her association with him in the public eye

    operatingomega: you’re not alone in your experiences or your goals either.

  80. alphamission says:

    Actually friends with benefits is not new. Friends with benefits is basically Plato’s idealization of the male/female friendship as far as i understand.

  81. JoeS says:

    “2) Greatly stringing out the process both via #1 above and extending the term of “pre-fiancé” or even fiancé. Darwin Catholic proposed in his “How to marry a nice girl” that young couples chastely date for 4 years, for example.”

    Another proof that the mind of “Darwin Catholic” is a hopeless contradiction. (like the name)

    And then there’s the line that if you think it requires too much waiting, you’re being insulting to the girl’s parents. Someone like you has no right! Sometimes I really think they’re far more upset about a man believing in the traditional Catholic view of short courtships and engagements than they are by premarital license. Feminist pharisaism punishes the men who try to follow the moral tenets of the religion, almost exclusively.

  82. van Rooinek says:

    It’s .. a false qualifier in that at any time a woman can claim “He’s not Christian (enough?) for me to be serious with him”, to break things up … whie she is no peach either.

    They don’t need such rationalizations. All they have to do is say, “God told me….” But really, if he’s not of faith, or his faith isn’t strong enough to satisfy her, she shouldn’t have ever started dating him to begin with.

    She twists it around to say that even the men who WILL wait … are somehow the wrong men.

    Well, that can actually be true. Just because I was wlling to wait, doesn’t mean that I’m a great match for everyone. Certainly I was “wrong” for many women, not morally wrong but wrong as in not a good match, personality wise.

    as the previous paragraph I wrote implies, she’d never make a man she’s really attracted to, wait.

    Disagree. Some women actually do wait for marriage. They want the guy badly but they believing in God strongly enough to hold out.

    “then she should cut him loose and let him marry someone else”
    In other words, the only guy she should date are the guys with options?

    No, I didn’t say that. My point is, that if some poor sap is desperately in love with a girl, and she keeps him as a boyfriend but has no intention of marrying (or having sex) with him for the next 10 years, that’s cruel. She should let him go. If the relationshop is not on track toward marriage, it’s fraud.

  83. HeligKo says:

    @P Ray, I am from the swimming world. What you describe is not contradictory to what I said. 4 guys in 4 years of university. That is either super light weight dating or very short LTRs. I doubt she ever took the time to really get to know any of them very well. She probably found a few alpha guys, probably athletes themselves that wanted some of that hard body. When my little sister was in college she managed the girls swim team. They had just finished their season when I was picking her up to come back for a break. They had a dance to close the season when I was there. It became the job of the managers to find dates for all but 3 of the girls. This is one of the top NCAA DI teams, so not a small team. She set me up with one of the swimmers for the dance. I had a good time, she was absolutely gorgeous, and had not been on a date outside of some form of school dance since she started college. They choose their sport over most everything else. I swam at high levels, and never once dated another swimmer. If I would have gone on past college, I am sure I would have enjoyed the tent cities where so many of these women decide that they are just going to give it up as a stress reliever, since they had committed to the life of an athlete.

  84. deti says:

    Observer:

    “The thing was, dating for year after year was torture if you were both a) convinced this one was a keeper, and b) waiting for the wedding. Although circumstances played a role, i thought then that women had the upper hand, waiting in hopes of better options. I knew not, then, of the differing smv curves.”

    Looking back on it, it’s clear that feminism has kept the truth of sexual attraction and how it works from men. Women constantly vie for the upper hand, seeking as much control in the relationship as possible. If keeping “desirable” betas sexless while holding out a carrot of possible sex, so much the better.

  85. P Ray says:

    “Certainly I was “wrong” for many women, not morally wrong but wrong as in not a good match, personality wise.”
    I hear you … but I’d also like to add this line:
    “What attracted that supermodel to that old billionaire? It must be his personality”.
    A woman has no time for the personality of a man she isn’t attracted to(for whatever reason).

  86. TFH says:

    Referring to the earlier topic of never-married women piling up, I would say that the timing of the upsurge in the charts coincides exactly with the arrival of Facebook and other social media.

    Facebook is very effective in duping women into thinking their marriage prospects are high, as they get tons of compliments from loserish betas, which they wrongly think translates into marriage prospects (particularly when a 32 year old woman still has photos up from when she was 28).

    Call it the ‘Facebook Effect’ in terms of leading women into their Wile E. Coyote moment…

  87. Anonymous Reader says:

    deti
    Looking back on it, it’s clear that feminism has kept the truth of sexual attraction and how it works from men.

    I don’t believe this, because in my experience feminists do not understand the truth of sexual attraction themselves. I’ve seen committed feminists who oscillated between getting pumped by an alpha, declaring themselves to be lesbian & getting bedded by a butch, and socializing with one or more beta orbiters — all the while declaring both how free, and how unhappy they were. I’ve seen married couples where the politics demanded that she earn as much money as he did, and when that was achieved…she lost interest in him. She still loved him, but was not “in love” anymore. Feminism has convinced a lot of women of some utter nonsense about the world, and about men & women, and so they are continually living in a way that makes them unhappy, while rationalizing that they are happy because they are living in a way that is “egalitarian” and that’s what they believe is the best way to be.

    Women constantly vie for the upper hand, seeking as much control in the relationship as possible.

    This, on the other hand, is true of all women to some degree. It’s just the way they are. You can cite evo-bio, you can cite Eve, or something else, but it is clearly inborn in the female psyche. Young women need to know that they are like this, and that they need to learn to control it. Young men need to learn that all women, even the demure lace-covered on on Papa’s pillow, are like this & he should be aware of the implications. There will be conflict in any LTR/marriage, and no, it isn’t his fault necessarily when it arises. In fact, if he fears her anger, fits, rants, etc. then he can count on more of them. If he does not fear them, then in time he can count on fewer.

    If keeping “desirable” betas sexless while holding out a carrot of possible sex, so much the better.

    Of course. I can cite evo-bio for this, too. Keeping a “spare man” around the mouth of the cave just in case makes perfect sense. Again, there’s no reason to deny or hid this, and also no reason to tolerarte or participate in this, either.

  88. P Ray says:

    @TFH
    The other thing that Facebook does, is increase the propensity for women to engage in relational aggression for the sake of drama.
    With the background excuse of “It’s all a joke, it’s just Facebook!”
    Even the “good girls” do that.
    Though not in a trace-able way: they do voice and audio chats.
    So that whole brouhaha about dealing with cyberbullying collapses into nothing because there’s no evidence.

  89. Anonymous Reader says:

    TFH
    Referring to the earlier topic of never-married women piling up, I would say that the timing of the upsurge in the charts coincides exactly with the arrival of Facebook and other social media.
    Facebook is very effective in duping women into thinking their marriage prospects are high, as they get tons of compliments from loserish betas, which they wrongly think translates into marriage prospects (particularly when a 32 year old woman still has photos up from when she was 28).

    Very useful thought. Just as online porn provides an illusion of a harem to men, just as online games provide an illusion of accomplishment to men, Facebook and other social media provide an illusion of unlimited courtship and choice to women. So Facebook is to women as online porn is to men. Or to put it another way:

    Facebook – porn for women’s egos.

  90. P Ray says:

    @Anonymous Reader
    Facebook – porn for women’s egos.

    That means it can be used as a metric for how seriously she takes the guy she’s with.
    I know married friends on Facebook who leave their husbands out of their pictures.
    I hold out very little hope for those marriages being pleasant, or the guy not discovering he is being cheated on or cuckolded.

  91. ballista74 says:

    Actually friends with benefits is not new. Friends with benefits is basically Plato’s idealization of the male/female friendship as far as i understand.

    Actually I’ve been researching the Roman culture for something else and found really none of this is a new thing. It really is shocking when you find out that Paul and Peter were dealing with the same things that we are now when it comes to women.

  92. an observer says:

    Deti,

    Red pill reality exposes the lies that feminism espouses as the new gospel. As a former beta orbiter, i am angry about the lies, the deception that stole years of my life.

    And still it continues. My own long wait was well into the thirties. Some women who soaked in the attentions of a beta have found their wait for the perfect man continues to menopause and beyond. That is a waste. There seems little value in getting angry, because those women believed the lies as well and will rationalise their ‘choices’ to the end of their days, like amy the missionary.

    The boyfriend creation is a deferment of reality, a lie used to persuade women they can have better. Commitment phobia is a projection used by women, and the boyfriend is just shorthand for ‘currently available sexual partner’.

    Or for the confused, hyper controlling woman, source of money, gifts and affirmation.
    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/beta-of-the-month-asexual-purgatory/

  93. P Ray says:

    @an observer:
    former or recovering “Orbiters” can set things right by letting women own their choices AND the consequences.
    I wonder whether DC Comics has ever addressed the issue of people getting in trouble because they firmly believed Superman would be around to help them.
    Same thing for the real world: Oblivious/cruel/wanton women (take your pick) continue their destructive trajectory, because there are many men willing to overlook their mistakes.

  94. Dalrock says:

    @van Rooinek

    The reality is by keeping it informal by definition you introduce the space for multiple boyfriends before choosing the fiancé. This is fundamental to the process.

    Well, YES. Even in the holiest, most Godly context, unless the girl marries the first boy that comes a-calling, then yes there WILL be multiple “suitors” before she finally picks one. That cannot be avoided. Likewise, the noy may not win the first girl (or may decide he doesn’t want the first girl) that he pursues.

    Even back in the old days, the girl didn’t necessarily marry the first one, and the guy didn’t necessarily succeed on his first try. So say the stories of my ancestors.

    You are still missing the extra layer. Boyfriend is a new invention, a higher level than suitor and of indefinite duration. The critical difference isn’t that she ensures that she can fall in love with the man and then proceeds to marriage, but that she falls in and out of love with a series of men before marrying. Deti described how the courtship process used to thread the needle here. Boyfriend is something entirely different. It takes the process from this, to this.

  95. greyghost says:

    You Know what this looks a lot like a get even with’em type of stringing men along. Or just another way of simulated marriage. The boyfriend concept is a marriage without obligation to accomidate hypergamy. This is no different than a sexless simulated marriage. Or even a kind of using “his” fertile years up while she waits for her fertile years to expire in the delusion ‘mister big” comes along and she can dump spare dude. If not spare dude will do to cover her fertlity loss with a child or two still leaving her free and available for mister big. It is a simulated sexless marriage.
    I told a guy this and posted once that isf a woman isn’t married and working with a husband on building a solid future with her husband by 25 she is worthless and should be seen as only a place to have sex with. A 32 year old never marriaged woman has to have something insane to fill her mind to be that way for 12 to 14 years and a virgin that a crazy chick I see no biblical virtue or any other from a virgin woman that old.
    As for this waiting shit it is just a way of avoiding commitment. you can finish school as a married couple.

  96. Dalrock says:

    @van Rooinek

    Okay, Dalrock: Four posts in a row have vanished. What have I done wrong?

    I responded to your other comment asking this upthread, but to make this visible I’m doing so here as well. I’m not sure why but askimet seems to be flagging some of your comments as spam. I do have some IP ranges blocked based on past trolls, but I double checked and none of those rules would apply to you.

  97. Opus says:

    I’ve got it, now:

    A man’s SMV will rise if he seen out with a woman (and the better looking the better): The same does not however apply to the woman. Even if she walks in with Brad Pitt, her SMV will be no higher than it was. (Men will not find her more attractive with Pitt than Before Pitt – which, by the way, is why is why Lolo Jones gold medal does not raise her SMV by an iota – and I know that is true because I was playing hard to get with Kelly Holmes, [two Olympic gold medals] as she eyed me up across the bar) indeed they may think she’s a slut so her SMV may go down. If, however she walks in with Pitt, wearing his ring, then that is an entirely different matter, as she has gained real investment from him.

    So, if I am right, what is the advantage to a woman in having a celibate boyfriend? If she is seen out with him, the question before too long will be, ‘so,when are you guys going to get engaged’? If the answer is, as it must be, ‘no, we are just friends’, then even if she is believed as to her chaste status (unlikely) everyone will think that HE is just stringing her along. She must therefore keep him in reserve as an emotional tampon. Difficult to see otherwise what the benefit is to her. I suppose that if she were very unattractive and walked in the Bar with Pitt that might impress her girlfriends but what would the point of that be?

    I am open to any alternative views on this.

  98. Dalrock says:

    @Opus

    So, if I am right, what is the advantage to a woman in having a celibate boyfriend? If she is seen out with him, the question before too long will be, ‘so,when are you guys going to get engaged’?

    She does have his investment though because he is publicly her exclusive boyfriend. The fact that it is on her terms (he remains celibate) actually enhances this.

  99. P Ray says:

    @Opus
    “So, if I am right, what is the advantage to a woman in having a celibate boyfriend?”
    The advantage to show other guys she is in demand and that any man interested in her must break through her disingenuous “I have a boyfriend” frame.
    In other words, create a benchmark for any other guy (rather than the “bitch shield”, which relies on her having to actively discourage interest) to be involved with her.
    Laziness, to get the higher-motivated man interested in her.
    What she doesn’t realise is that she may end up with a man whose only interest was the thrill of the chase … and not the catch.

  100. an observer says:

    P Ray,

    Waiting for someone else to deal with the consequences is fostered by the state, and supported by feminism. Women get choices, men get obligations and responsibilities, and the bill.

    Fiction writers have addressed elements of dependancy, too. There was a snippet in one of the superman books that discussed moral growth stalling in a world grown dependent on superman.
    http://supermanthrutheages.com/thebook/lsok/?chapter=18

    Scroll down near the end for the relevant part.

    Nowadays, the state has become the arbiter of dependancy. Sticking men with the bills through the power of democracy.

    I see similarities here in relation to learning new things. Red pill people have stepped outside approved truths and see the world for what it is. Badly out of kilter.

  101. TFH says:

    Opus,

    A man’s SMV will rise if he seen out with a woman (and the better looking the better): The same does not however apply to the woman. Even if she walks in with Brad Pitt, her SMV will be no higher than it was.

    Of course. This also means many other things :

    1) Male attractiveness to women is zero-sum in a way that women’s attractiveness to men is not. Hence, female obesity does a lot more to increase male misery than high male unemployment does to increase female misery (not much at all).

    2) VR Sex by 2020 will do a lot to heavily penalize any real women who are a 7 or lower in looks.

    3) Women are utterly clueless about how the sexual market works. Even female world leaders proudly say that women are better leaders than men simply because 55 year old female politicians do not have extramarital affairs the way 55-year-old male politicians do, a statement that has so many layers of ignorance and delusion in it, that is boggles the mind…

  102. P Ray says:

    @An observer
    “Waiting for someone else to deal with the consequences is fostered by the state, and supported by feminism.”
    If that someone else is the person who made the bad decision, I don’t see the problem.

    “Sticking men with the bills through the power of democracy.”
    Women are the ones being preferentially hired and claiming they were being held back by men.
    Hence they are going to be the higher earners of the future, and pay the taxes for the welfare of their oblivious/wanton/cruel sisters.
    How long do you think a woman is going to accept paying the bill for another woman?

    “Women get choices, men get obligations and responsibilities, and the bill.”
    Only if that man is cohabiting with said woman, has a child by her, or manages to get falsely paternity-accused.
    It’s hard to snare/deceive/trap a man who knows what the traps look like.

  103. The moral godless says:

    More men would be happy to stay celibate until marriage if women had more to bring to the table in a relationship than a wet spot between their legs.

  104. TFH says:

    P Ray and Observer,

    70-80% of ALL government spending is a transfer from men to women.

    Furthermore, any democracy reverts to this state over time. In fact, women are striving to make it ever more lopsided.

    That is why Democracy has a life-cycle, after which it is followed by a feminist police state.

    Giving women the right to vote is still a highly experimental notion. Only 5-6 countries are 90+ years into female suffrage and another 10-15 are 60-90 years in. That is waaaaay to small of a track record to say that such a state is even sustainable, let alone optimal.

  105. TFH says:

    Again, this whole ‘celibate Christian boyfriend’ thing makes the Sunday Morning Nightclub just too easy…

    No wonder it works so well….

  106. van Rooinek says:

    vR — Even back in the old days, the girl didn’t necessarily marry the first one, and the guy didn’t necessarily succeed on his first try. So say the stories of my ancestors.
    Dalrock — You are still missing the extra layer. Boyfriend is a new invention, a higher level than suitor and of indefinite duration.

    Certainly it has morphed into that over the last several decades, you are quite right there. The sexual revolution removed the biological pressure to close the deal, thus allowing the relationship to last indefinitely.

    But… before the sexual revolution, when even the secular culture strongly disdained premarital liasons, the meaning of “boyfriend” was a lot closer, if not identical to “suitor”. It was expected that you would get married (otherwise why date at all?) My own parents used the terms “boyfriend” and “girlfriend” in the older sense of the word.

    To put it another way: We don’t disagree on the social changes that have occured. It’s just that I observe that the words “boyfriend” and “girlfriend” have undergone a change in meaning in our lifetime. The modern conception of those two words, is indeed new.

    The critical difference [is] that she falls in and out of love with a series of men before marrying

    Unfortunately, falling in love can happen in any context. You don’t need to date or court, you just need to get to know someone. I fell for women that I got to know in church, chemistry class, Bible study, long before I ever dated or courted them or got to a “boyfriend” level (if I ever did… usually it was unrequited.) And, apparently, a couple of women fell in love with me in the same way.

    Contrary to what some modern courtship advocates pretend, there is NOT a system that can prevent heartbreaks. Banning dating won’t help, and neither will abolishing the secular boyfriend concept. Family history and hundreds of years of poetry and folk songs confirm that even back in the old days under the old rules, a chaste suitor could easily fall in love with a girl, or a series of girls, that didn’t want hin, and vice versa. Men and women fell in and out of love long before our time.

    But.. key difference: Under the old rules, if the feelings were MUTUAL then barring force majeure (ie, objecting parents), the couple would soon get married. Under the new permanent boyfriend/girlfriend system, mutual love doesn’t necessarily lead to a commitment. They may just “date” or cohabit a few years, til one gets bored or gets a better offer.. and that is indeed destructive.

    It would all fall back into place if people would save sex til marriage, and not divorce for light and transient causes.. Not holdin’ my breath.

  107. an observer says:

    Tfh,

    Yes, kind of what i was trying to say. Equal opportunitu hiring, education systems that pandef to girls, ludicrously long training for any trade or profession, oppressive taxation theft… Are we not already at that next stage?

    Men already avoid any number of professions that raise suspicipn of their motives.

    Women will only be high earners whilst the state retains control. That will not always be so. When the state can no longer afford thousands of spin merchants, hr advisors and jobs for the girls, Doug Caseys Greater Depression will be here.
    http://lewrockwell.com/wile/wile39.1.html

    At that time, the average woman with a liberal arts degree that cost fifty thousand bucks won’t help fix the broken toilet…

  108. Dalrock says:

    @van Rooinek

    To put it another way: We don’t disagree on the social changes that have occured. It’s just that I observe that the words “boyfriend” and “girlfriend” have undergone a change in meaning in our lifetime. The modern conception of those two words, is indeed new.

    I think what happened was there was inertia left over from the old ways. But I still see the concept of boyfriend as a new one. That generations of more conservative people treated this new term in the old way for some time isn’t surprising. Either way, I now better understand your position here.

    Contrary to what some modern courtship advocates pretend, there is NOT a system that can prevent heartbreaks. Banning dating won’t help, and neither will abolishing the secular boyfriend concept. Family history and hundreds of years of poetry and folk songs confirm that even back in the old days under the old rules, a chaste suitor could easily fall in love with a girl, or a series of girls, that didn’t want hin, and vice versa. Men and women fell in and out of love long before our time.

    But.. key difference: Under the old rules, if the feelings were MUTUAL then barring force majeure (ie, objecting parents), the couple would soon get married. Under the new permanent boyfriend/girlfriend system, mutual love doesn’t necessarily lead to a commitment. They may just “date” or cohabit a few years, til one gets bored or gets a better offer.. and that is indeed destructive.

    It would all fall back into place if people would save sex til marriage, and not divorce for light and transient causes.. Not holdin’ my breath.

    I’m close to agreement here, but there is still a fundamental difference. In the past as you point out they understood the risk and took active steps to prevent it. That it still happened was as you said to some degree unavoidable, but the system was designed to minimize if not outright prevent this. Now the system assumes that a woman falling in and out of love with a series of men is essential to her finding the right husband. This isn’t a small difference, they are polar opposites. This is what I’m getting at with this post. Saving sex until marriage and making divorce truly rare is a separate but related issue.

  109. deti says:

    Dalrock:

    “Now the system assumes that a woman falling in and out of love with a series of men is essential to her finding the right husband.”

    Yes, but you forgot the sex part.

    So it should read:

    “Now the system assumes that a woman falling in and out of love with, and having sex with, a series of men is essential to her finding the right husband.”

  110. an observer says:

    The state as it currently operates is clearly not sustainable. The lunatic left that reinstalled the socialists in france want to avoid the issues.

    Lots of females probably voted for them. “I’m irrational and i vote” would make a great bumper sticker.

    I often wonder what Zhou Enlai was referring to..
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Zhou_Enlai

    No matter. Euroland is toast. But the demise may take the global banking system with it…

  111. deti says:

    Relevant to my last comment: Despite the subject matter of this post, it’s assumed most women will not be virgins when they marry. It’s presumed that a woman will have had at least a few premarital sex partners.

  112. van Rooinek says:

    Miss Jones as an example, if she has really been looking for a husband all this time who will respect her virginity, I do feel for her… usually the time frame involved to having sex within marriage is much shorter if the market is filled with commitment minded people. Unfortunately it’s not.

    Lolo Jones could be married in 24 hours if she wished. Look at her! Thousands of virgin Christian men would volunteer to go to Vegas with her. She just needs to pick one. Ah, that’s the hard part.

    Having grown up around celebrities and their children (due to chance circumstance, I’m not a celebrity or related to one ), I can tell you this: Celebrites tend to basically wall themselves off from normal people, not necessarily totally intentionally. Part of it is safety (paparazzi and worse), and part of it is just that their lives follow very different paths than most of us. Within their safe space, they are perfectly regular people with normal dreams, desires, emotions, and they want nothing more than to be treated as such. But unless some unusual circumstance places you there, you are unlikely to get into that circle. Combine that with hypergamy, and it’s quite possible that Lolo Jones is just *not accessible* to normal guys, guys who might have been good matches for her but she’ll never know.

    Methinks she needs to get Tebowed… lol @ lolo…

    The fact is, being God honoring is not going to find you a husband or wife too quickly if at all. Sad but true.

    Indeed, for most of us, that’s true.

  113. Dalrock says:

    @Deti

    Lolo Jones has a low SMV because she has publicly said no sex before marriage. Her MMV paradoxically is higher than her SMV because of her virginity.

    Spot on. I tried to explain this same basic thing to Tracey on the over 55 thread the other day, but you have distilled it much better. This is actually what started me on this train of thought. In fact, I started to write a response to you over on that thread and ended up pulling it to moderation so I could write up posts instead. I just released it.

    Yes, but you forgot the sex part.

    So it should read:

    “Now the system assumes that a woman falling in and out of love with, and having sex with, a series of men is essential to her finding the right husband.”

    Very well done, made me laugh. This is true. However, the fundamental problem exists if the sex is left out, which is what Christians as a group are missing.

  114. van Rooinek says:

    Dalrock: Now the system assumes that a woman falling in and out of love with a series of men is essential to her finding the right husband

    We’ll just have to agree to disagree. Nobody wants to go through heartbreak. Everybody secretly hopes that their first true love will be their last.

  115. GKChesterton says:

    @Anonymous
    [courtship]

    I’m younger than both and went through true courtship. It is not dead, it simply is not very common. If it is demanded by either party I don’t think its that hard for the other to conform. You are, after all, promising a goal. Humans are goal oriented. The other party will adjust.

    @Balista
    [Biblical BF/GF]

    I wouldn’t go so far as to say there were _none_ but that the few such arrangements didn’t work out well. The first example that springs to mind is Sampson and Delilah.

    @Van R.

    Another problem is that the prohibition of dating, can severely hamper a young single’s chances of ever finding someone to court in the first place

    Indeed. A quandary to fathers of daughters. There are legitimate protections but how to enforce without being socially crippling?

    @Anonymous

    In the example I mentioned, the woman was living with her parents while finishing her degree in a technical field. And again, I suspect that 1 year announcement was to prove clear intent, and no impulsiveness. People often do odd things because they are reacting to stupid things someone near and dear to them did, y’know.

    Social expectations matter here. While I was engaged within two months in my own case a nine month engagement followed (she requested a year…I laughed). The reasoning was simple once she explained it. The marriage ceremony has become _insane_ and the ritual steps are designed by the Devil himself to destroy couples. Gone is, “take her into your tent”. So, my advice to young serious men is don’t buy into the ceremony. Make it clear why, and don’t go beyond 3-4 months which should be plenty of time. I didn’t have enough information to argue a better case at the time…which looking back was a problem. One that I hope I can correct in others.

  116. Sunshine says:

    An observer: ““I’m irrational and i vote” would make a great bumper sticker.”

    This made me laugh really hard. Anyway, I’m always going on about repealing the 19th amendment, it’s like my pet issue.

  117. P Ray says:

    @deti
    “Relevant to my last comment: Despite the subject matter of this post, it’s assumed most women will not be virgins when they marry. It’s presumed that a woman will have had at least a few premarital sex partners.”
    So the women are both blasphemers and hypocrites? (White when you’re not a virgin, “prostitution degrades women”(and being a slut doesn’t?))
    Why are they complaining about men then? Somebody forgot the beam in their own eye.

  118. Sunshine says:

    deti wrote: “Relevant to my last comment: Despite the subject matter of this post, it’s assumed most women will not be virgins when they marry. It’s presumed that a woman will have had at least a few premarital sex partners.”

    You know, I’m kind of curious about this. Someone who was raised Christian needs to explain this to me. I was raised nominally Catholic, so I thought virginity was just a word in Silent Night, I had no concept that people might actually remain virgins until marriage. I met my husband when I was at university and we married right away; he was an antheist, I was an agnostic, and we were married in a museum. We didn’t become Christians until well into our marriage, so the chastity issue just never was relevant to us, but I would never engage in sexual sin now because I know it is a sin. I’m trying to understand how someone could be raised with a clear understanding that sex before marriage is absolutely wrong and then just do it anyway, probably many times, and not feel that their relationship with God is seriously compromised.

  119. van Rooinek says:

    vR… the prohibition of dating, can severely hamper a young single’s chances of ever finding someone to court in the first place

    GKC…. Indeed. A quandary to fathers of daughters. There are legitimate protections but how to enforce without being socially crippling?

    Also a problem to the fathers of sons, which is my situation. What am I going to tell them?

    “Daddy had to get on the internet to find Mommy and get married, because some stupid book about kissing dating goodbye made the rounds at his old megachurch, and it was impossible to get married there! Later on, the associate pastor who pushed that book, was exposed as a homosexual child molester, and he’s still on the run. So don’t trust anyone who tells you not to date. Your Grandma, my Mom, said from the beginning that he was probably a fag who was trying to reserve the young men for himself — and she was right! ”

    Happens to be the truth. Tends to jaundice my view of courtship, to put it mildly. Puts me at odds with a lot of my fellow homeschoolers though.

  120. JoeS says:

    ” Make it clear why, and don’t go beyond 3-4 months which should be plenty of time. I didn’t have enough information to argue a better case at the time…which looking back was a problem. One that I hope I can correct in others.”

    Generally a 6 month minimum wait is insisted on. Totally untraditional, but totally in keeping with liberalism and feminism, which today dominates the post-Vatican II church.

  121. van Rooinek says:

    I’m trying to understand how someone could be raised with a clear understanding that sex before marriage is absolutely wrong and then just do it anyway, probably many times, and not feel that their relationship with God is seriously compromised.

    You and the entire Manosphere are trying to figure this out. The mystery of iniquity.

  122. P Ray says:

    @van Rooinek
    Tell them that truth.
    Or you are dooming them to care about the women … that don’t care about them or see them as stepping stones to her personal success, ladders to help her reach Mr. Big or safety nets for her own bad decisions.
    Maybe it’s better to give them all the knowledge you have,
    rather than restrict their thinking: has your experience made you question the so-called “truths” you previously believed?

  123. deti says:

    van rooinek:

    “Celebrites tend to basically wall themselves off from normal people, not necessarily totally intentionally. *** . Combine that with hypergamy, and it’s quite possible that Lolo Jones is just *not accessible* to normal guys, guys who might have been good matches for her but she’ll never know.”

    For people like Lolo Jones, that’s the hardest part of finding a suitable mate. Not only does the entire world know she’s a virgin, she’s also a famous world class athlete. She will be ultrahypergamous. The men she will naturally be drawn to will be high status themselves, and they will have their choice of women to date and bed. In today’s SMP, given a choice between an 8 who will do you right now and a 10 who will make you wait ’til the wedding night, what do you think most alphas will choose?

    Exactly right. That’s why America’s college campuses are full of frat boys and football team captains pumping & dumping their schools’ entire roster of 5s and 6s.

  124. P Ray says:

    @Sunshine:
    I’m trying to understand how someone could be raised with a clear understanding that sex before marriage is absolutely wrong and then just do it anyway, probably many times, and not feel that their relationship with God is seriously compromised.
    Remember God forgives all sins.
    Taken to the logical conclusion, therefore a slut is a virgin.
    Since God is the final arbiter,
    No man can judge any woman.
    But somehow, any woman is free to judge all men.
    (Never understood that bit myself).

  125. Sunshine says:

    “You and the entire Manosphere are trying to figure this out. The mystery of iniquity.”

    Maybe, but there seems to be something else at work here. I met a woman we’ll call Estefani through the infamous Tuesday morning Women’s Bible study. She had married early, had two kids, and split up with her husband. She met a Christian man who led her to Christ and impregnated her at the same time. She married him and then divorced him before the baby was even born. She then REmarried her first husband, which is when I met her. She has since then divorced her first/third husband. She immediately moved in with another man, all while posting daily facebook updates about all the blessings and all the strength that Jesus is bestowing upon her. She is now pregnant by this man…and they BOTH attend the same church I do. Supposedly they are engaged. The things is, when she posted news of her pregnancy on facebook, there was nothing but congratulations from everyone, including people I know to be devout Christians. I did not congratulate her. I thought, “Have I lost my mind that there seems to be something WRONG WITH THIS SITUATION??”

  126. JoeS says:

    P Ray, sins have temporal consequences. God can forgive a murderer. But that doesn’t mean the murderer doesn’t have to pay the penalty.

    Christian sexual morality is based on the natural law. When the law is violated it has natural consequences, that can’t simply be brushed aside with the arrogant claim that a person has been forgiven so there is nothing penitential they have to suffer.

  127. bskillet81 says:

    . I’m trying to understand how someone could be raised with a clear understanding that sex before marriage is absolutely wrong and then just do it anyway, probably many times, and not feel that their relationship with God is seriously compromised.

    It’s the personal Jesus they serve. Also known as the Holy Hamster. His job is to make them feel special and unique and to twist everything in the Bible into being about sentamentality and tingles and self-esteem. Thus, when the Bible tells people not to fornicate, her personal Jesus says all it really means is you should love the person you are having sex with. Love is of course defined as “gives me the gina tingles more than the next guy.”

  128. JoeS says:

    “The things is, when she posted news of her pregnancy on facebook, there was nothing but congratulations from everyone, including people I know to be devout Christians. I did not congratulate her. I thought, “Have I lost my mind that there seems to be something WRONG WITH THIS SITUATION??”

    The concept of scandal has been lost. Religion is just a therapeutic and social exercise, without any serious influence on the lives of most church-goers.

  129. Dalrock says:

    Sunshine,

    Suz’s famous quip “She isn’t a slut, she married most of the men she had sex with.” comes to mind reading your recent comment. It truly is painful the ease with which these things are accepted today.

  130. Sunshine says:

    It’s the personal Jesus they serve. Also known as the Holy Hamster. His job is to make them feel special and unique and to twist everything in the Bible into being about sentamentality and tingles and self-esteem. Thus, when the Bible tells people not to fornicate, her personal Jesus says all it really means is you should love the person you are having sex with. Love is of course defined as “gives me the gina tingles more than the next guy.”

    OK, but are these women then not truly Christians at all? Because do we not receive the Holy Spirit who convicts us of guilt with regard to sin and righteousness when we accept the sacrifice of Christ’s shed blood? I still sin all the time – I’m not always patient, kind, self-controlled, etc – but I always feel that conviction immediately when I do. It’s how I even know to repent. I would never celebrate my sin on facebook…”Hey everyone I was so totally disrespectful to my husband today!”

  131. P Ray says:

    @JoeS:
    Those statements excusing their lapses in actions with long-term consequences, I have heard them more than once.
    It’s no surprise why many men now say there’s no difference between religious and secular women, when it comes to sexual mores and behaviour.
    A woman can string along many men with the claim she is looking for “The One”.
    Or she can choose to sleep with many men with the claim she is looking for “The One”.
    For me those actions are equivalent:
    whoever she finally chooses to build a life with, is someone who is going to grapple with deceitfulness, shallow emotional investment and capriciousness.

  132. van Rooinek says:

    van Rooinek — tell them that truth.

    Oh, I surely will.

    Or you are dooming them to care about the women … that don’t care about them or see them as stepping stones to her personal success, ladders to help her reach Mr. Big or safety nets for her own bad decisions. Maybe it’s better to give them all the knowledge you have, rather than restrict their thinking:

    No, that was my curse. I will teach them all about hypergamy, Game, etc., so they can avoid wastiing money on free dinners, being a beta orbiter in hopes some girl will see the light, etc, etc. I will not allow them to be stomped on as I was.

    I will certainly exhort them towards righteousness. But Game needs to be used at least defensively no matter how good a person you are.. indeed, the more righteous you are, the more desperately you need Game (wise as serpents, gentle as doves… Game is the “wise” part).

    has your experience made you question the so-called “truths” you previously believed?

    I learned never to trust the church on matters of romance. They got EVERYTHING wrong except the basics — don’t be unequally yoked, don’t have sex til marriage. (They didn’t enforce those rules all that well — how could they? But at least they preached them, occasionally.). The anti-dating, hang-out-in-groups madness that was pushed in evangelicaldom for at least a decade before it was codified into Harris’ book, acts as a VACCINE AGAINST relationships.

    The parental advice I received, was: date, date, date — date a different girl every weekend, until you find one worthwhile…. and only then, go steady and get more serious. When I followed that advice… with a little help from Al Gore’s wonderful invention… it worked.

    In modern evangelical terms, it would be, “Date around casually, circulate widely, until you find someone worth courting. Then court, or come as close to it as circumstances permit.” This is what I shall teach my sons.

  133. Anonymous Reader says:

    In some branches of Islam there is a concept called the “temporary marriage”. A man “marries” a woman for, oh, the afternoon. Once the sex is done, he “divorces” her. Thus the letter of the Koranic law against sex outside of marriage is met. It’s clearly hairsplitting to an absurd degree. But apparently it is either legal or winked at, in some parts of the Middle East.

    Sunshine, perhaps some sort of hairsplitting / rationalization is going on in your situation. There’s some Olympic-quality hamsters involved, for sure.

  134. deti says:

    Sunshine, JoeS, PRay:

    “I’m trying to understand how someone could be raised with a clear understanding that sex before marriage is absolutely wrong and then just do it anyway, probably many times, and not feel that their relationship with God is seriously compromised.”

    SEveral things are at work, I think.

    1. We’re talking about college students, or people of college age. Currently, the average 20 year old’s brain and future time orientation are not nearly as developed as the same person 10 years later, at age 30. This wasn’t always true. Sixty years ago, men and women were marrying and staying married in their early 20s. In large part, college delays the maturity required for marriage, simply because that maturity just doesn’t have to be in place yet, so it isn’t and the individuals don’t develop it.

    2. A belief that forgiveness and repentance are only spiritual concepts that have only limited natural and physical operation. IOW, “I can have tons of sex now and if it turns out badly, I can just ask God for forgiveness and hey, “He’s faithful and just to cleanse me of all unrighteousness”.

    3. An erroneous belief that sexual conduct with multiple serial partners won’t hinder one’s ability to select a marriage partner. See #1 above.

  135. P Ray says:

    @Sunshine
    ”Hey everyone I was so totally disrespectful to my husband today!”
    What a coincidence, I have heard that from a woman in a Catholic marriage … who also happens to be a racist and says her husband is an idiot.
    You forgot the smiley though. No insults without smileys, makes it apparent it’s a joke.

  136. Mellie says:

    “Why would men want to sign up for the role of celibate boyfriend?”

    A young man (18-21 yrs. old) may have to do this to retain the affections of his chaste, Christian high-school sweetheart during the years that he is racking up debt…er, I mean… obtaining an education at an institution of higher learning. He could, indeed, go the vo-tech route and be married within a year. In fact, that is what I advised my son to consider but he wanted the “name” school and a prestigious title and a nice car. He could work fifty hours or more a week and rent a studio apt. and drive a beater and be able to marry. Not his idea of a decent life, so both he and his girlfriend are totally financially dependent on their parents and will be for several years. This is not an ideal situation but frighteningly common, it seems. Five or six years of chaste boyfriend/girlfriend stuff is a bit much to expect. Alternately, a three year “engagement” isn’t any better. Many of you have young sons and this won’t be an issue for you for 10 or 15 years but I am curious what you would advise your sons to do regarding career, college and marriage when the time comes.

  137. I think that a couple should take one year *at most* to decide if they should marry, or else let each other go. (If you start the dating relationship with marriage as your desired outcome, you will probably know sooner than that.) The engagement will probably need to last at least 6 months, to allow for planning, reserving a church, and perhaps fulfilling diocesan requirements (the Catholics make you take preparation). This is going to feel like an eternity anyway, but it’s not the same thing as a four year “engagement” which is just pretending to be married.

    Multi-year engagements are bad, but I can’t say that GKC’s “carry her off to your tent” manifesto strikes me as reasonable. You don’t have to be Bridezilla to want a certain level of solemnity for the occasion, and it’s charitable to one’s family and friends to give them some time to get used to the idea of You + Some Guy/Gal We’ve Never Heard Of.

  138. Terse_man says:

    In large part, college delays the maturity required for marriage

    This happens ways before college. Kids grow up with no responsibilities, no concept of how the world really works. They now do Facebook and Xbox, not milk the cows. It is sad that so few grow up on farms these days.

  139. TFH says:

    Here is the problem with Lolo Jones : Solipism

    If a man wins Olympic medals, tons of women go crazy after him due to his new-found fame (e.g. Michael Phelps, Usain Bolt, etc.).

    If a woman wins Olympic medals, but is otherwise not necessarily a beautiful woman (most female athletes aren’t), she is expecting the same boost in SMV that a man sees…

    She did one thing right by remaining a virgin. But she is doing the next thing wrong by assuming Olympic fame does the same for her as it would for a male athlete. This is even more puzzling to her given that she can make the same endorsement money as, and get on TV even more often than, a male athlete.

  140. And everyone is piling on Darwin Catholic, but didn’t he say four years in the context of college students? That’s different. I know many couples who dated from sophomore or even freshman year and married soon after they graduated… we went to a religious school, and the strict rules about visiting and PDAs gave the couples at least some ammo in the fight against temptation.

  141. JoeS says:

    “The engagement will probably need to last at least 6 months, to allow for planning, reserving a church, and perhaps fulfilling diocesan requirements (the Catholics make you take preparation). ”

    It’s important to understand that the mandatory pre-Cana wait, just like today’s annulment system, is not at all traditional. Short engagements were the rule in the 19th Century. 6 weeks to 3 months. Any young couple spending time together regularly were supposed to be doing so with a speedy marriage in view.

  142. Terse_man says:

    Holy Hamster.

    Is that the new name for the Holy Spirit?

  143. JoeS says:

    “1. We’re talking about college students, or people of college age. Currently, the average 20 year old’s brain and future time orientation are not nearly as developed as the same person 10 years later, at age 30.”

    I strongly disagree with this. They are doing now what society expects, in the past society expected differently, and so people behaved differently. There is heavy social disapproval of early Christian marriage. As Dalrock says, there is a widespread belief that girls are supposed to be in several long term relationships before marrying, lest the girl be “tricked” into marrying someone who isn’t good enough.

  144. Terse_man says:

    They are doing now what society expects

    They are doing what they want, and since due to prosperity, society thinks that it can afford it.

  145. Mellie says:

    JoeS, I agree that society at large and even Christian culture discourages early marriage. Two 19 or 20 year olds marrying now would seem outrageous to most. It is funny when I think about the fact that my parents married at that age and no one blinked twice. Somehow, though, I can’t bear to encourage my son to marry at 19 or 20 because I don’t see the maturity necessary for a successful marriage.

  146. 7man says:

    @Mellie
    Many trades are in high demand. A welder, a pipe fitter, PLC tech, high voltage electrician, or millwright/machinist call all make more money than an engineer with a college degree. Engineers get close to the top salary of any college degree, so I question his economic analysis. After considering the cost/benefit analysis and the amount of debt a college degree entails, a vocational education is clearly the best choice. (I bet your son did not do a rigorous financial analysis to support his decision.) And a smart man can easily rise through the ranks on the blue collar side into a supervisor or management position.

    I advocate this path even to men with the grades and the capability to handle engineering. The right vocational degree results in higher earnings than the average business degree. Getting a college degree is not an excuse not to marry since two can live cheaper than one in any case. If they intend on getting married anyway, what is the reason for waiting?

  147. Terse_man says:

    I advocate this path even to men with the grades and the capability to handle engineering.

    I am not sure about that, but I would advise going to a community college for two years and then transferring. Costs much less.

  148. Jennifer says:

    Dalrock, you’re not being in the least clear. Of course men and women should be celibate when they’re dating and unmarried. What alternative do you propose then? Because you don’t like modern dating, and you don’t like the idea of a woman marrying a man she doesn’t love, which would be fairly likely if she was allowed a very short period of time to decide with a lot of pressure; what then?

  149. JoeS says:

    “Somehow, though, I can’t bear to encourage my son to marry at 19 or 20 because I don’t see the maturity necessary for a successful marriage.”

    That’s not the real reason, the reason is not maturity. Rather it’s the general social expectation in these times, that people have convinced themselves is a matter of “maturity.” It certainly it could be a dangerous proposition for him to marry early in this day and age when early marriages are given annulments almost automatically.

  150. Rico says:

    And everyone is piling on Darwin Catholic, but didn’t he say four years in the context of college students? That’s different. I know many couples who dated from sophomore or even freshman year and married soon after they graduated… we went to a religious school, and the strict rules about visiting and PDAs gave the couples at least some ammo in the fight against temptation.

    Even in the context of college, four years seems ridiculous. My grandparents met their freshman year, eloped their sophomore year. My brother married his wife before they graduated college. If you’re dating someone exclusively for a year or mor-, barring a long distance relationship, you *know* if they’re the right person or not by that point.

  151. Rico says:

    Social expectations matter here. While I was engaged within two months in my own case a nine month engagement followed (she requested a year…I laughed). The reasoning was simple once she explained it. The marriage ceremony has become _insane_ and the ritual steps are designed by the Devil himself to destroy couples. Gone is, “take her into your tent”. So, my advice to young serious men is don’t buy into the ceremony. Make it clear why, and don’t go beyond 3-4 months which should be plenty of time.

    I’ve known people who have put together *lavish* weddings/receptions in a 3 month timeframe. Taking a year or more to plan a wedding is insanity.

  152. Jennifer says:

    “Multi-year engagements are bad, but I can’t say that GKC’s “carry her off to your tent” manifesto strikes me as reasonable”

    Sure as hell isn’t. Yeah, just screw her, thus is the holy union. Once again shows the equally asinine places that both male and female single-mindedness can go to.

  153. Sunshine:

    “You know, I’m kind of curious about this. Someone who was raised Christian needs to explain this to me. I was raised nominally Catholic, so I thought virginity was just a word in Silent Night, I had no concept that people might actually remain virgins until marriage.”

    My wife and I married in 1986. There were virgins and sluts around then in my social group here in Australia. Most of the girls I “dated” were virgins (in fact, they all were, except the married woman I slept with). Apart from the young married woman, my wife was my “first” and I was her “first”. We are both Catholics. My wife was a technical (blood-on-the-sheets) virgin when we married, but we had got up to a fair bit of mischief beforehand.

    It was an absolute requirement of mine that the girl I married would be a virgin. I was a bit unusual even then in this regard, but I knew other men who felt the same way.

  154. van Rooinek says:

    Holy Hamster.
    Is that the new name for the Holy Spirit?

    Heavens no. It’s the name for the self-serving substitute, better known as the Rationalization Hamster (google it.) Of course the Rationalization Hamster tries very hard to convince the woman that he is the voice of God but he isn’t.

  155. alphamission says:

    All of this is helping me see the outstanding success of arranged marriage. Im still not fond of being deprived my choice of woman, but arranged couples, by and large, stay together. By a woman never experiencing the choice addiction that comes with modern dating (not to mention the oxytocin desensatization that comes if she is sexually active) she is able to be satisfied with what she has (as long as she didnt get a really raw deal).

  156. van Rooinek says:

    Why would men want to sign up for the role of celibate boyfriend?”

    Maybe we’ve made this way too complicated.

    If a Christian man wants to marry a Christian woman, like any other couple they go through a time when they are assessing their fitness as marriage partners, generally referred to as “dating”.

    Although the term has become tainted over the last few decades, when a man is dating a woman he is still normally called her “boyfriend” in English speaking countries.

    And if they are Christians, celibacy until marriage is required of them.

    Hence… until they either get engaged, or break it off, he’s her boyfriend, and he’s celibate.

    I was my wife’s “celibate boyfriend” for 6 months. Then I proposed, and I was her fiance for 6 months. Then, I became her husband.

    Language lesson over.

  157. Jennifer says:

    Yes, I’d say that covers the terms pretty well.

  158. 7man says:

    Jennifer,

    Since you are again commenting on sex, tents and marriage, I remembered this classic quote of yours: “Just not going to be some casual affair; bang bang between cheap flaps, and done.”

  159. The Antigrrrl says:

    @Sunshine

    Although there are definite points to the courtship movement there are also some problems. In the denomination I was in the female to male ratio was something like 10 to 1 in some areas. it was also a denomination that focused on making sure women were as unattractive as possible, I mean the slutty girls in the culture I grew up in wore their hair poufed in front of their coverings and skirts below the knee. The girls that got picked for courtship were the really pretty and charming ones of course, not the ones who had been actively taught not to draw any attention whatsoever. Unsuprisingly every girl with an SMV below about 7 left the church I grew up in like rats from a sinking ship or became an antique virgin.
    Not to mention the extreme legalism in that denomination that made listening to rock music on par with fornication…I mean seriously, if you are going to go to hell anyway, might as well try everything first.

    Even just allowing/training girls to be attractive would have been a huge improvement on the situation. At least then there would have been a chance of drawing marriagable material into the church. I don’t think even most married Christian men walk around wanting their wives to be so completely unattractive that no man wants to look at them, just my guess.

  160. TFH says:

    Darwin Catholic proposed in his “How to marry a nice girl” that young couples chastely date for 4 years, for example.

    That is beyond absurd. And that fool calls himself ‘conservative’

    In most traditional societies, ‘courtship’ was only for a few months before marriage, and people married at age 21-22 as virgins. Call this oppressive, but it is also the only system that puts children first, and ensures that almost all children grow up with both biological parents in the same house..

  161. TFH says:

    All of this is helping me see the outstanding success of arranged marriage.

    It has its problems, and it also puts the family ahead of the individual, which inhibits individuals of extraordinary ability (who are usually men).

    BUT, it absolutely, positively ensures that virtually all children grow up with both biological parents, and all four biological grandparents. If the well-being of children is the highest priority, then this type of marriage system makes the most sense.

  162. TFH says:

    7man,

    Since you are again commenting on sex, tents and marriage, I remembered this classic quote of yours

    Careful, 7man. You are rewarding Jennifer with gina tingles (which is the primary reason she comes here). She will respond by threatening you with gruesome violence, which is how she expresses her lust….

  163. TFH, yeah, I think women do mix up lust and violence, more so than men perhaps. I find that my wife often threatens me jokingly with violence when she is turned on, and her light punches on the arm seem to express the same thing. Athol Kay once noted something similar with his Jennifer …

  164. Mellie says:

    7man, your suggestions for a young man’s career path sounds very reasonable to me. Going to community college is another good option. Working one’s way up the ladder is not too popular with some of today’s young people, though. They would like to walk into a six figure salary without doing any dirty work. Different expectations from generations past.
    The reason for waiting on marriage is not having any money and in fact, being in debt for school loans. The other reason is one that is being brought out in the comments here: lack of social support. The man is “supposed” to have his career all sewn up and make a nest before bringing home the girl and he is supposed to be chaste while making all these preparations which take many years.

  165. Firepower says:

    Cane Caldo:
    Was Paul, the son of god?

    Gee, no.
    So why follow him instead of Jesus?
    Where did Jesus talk about chastity?

  166. GKChesterton says:

    @P Ray,
    Or you are dooming them to care about the women … that don’t care about them

    This is of course both not true and un-Christian. Knowing methods of preventing divorce and helping women live a sanctified life in defiance of their fallen nature is different from assuming they are incapable of feeling.

    @Sunshine,
    I did not congratulate her. I thought, “Have I lost my mind that there seems to be something WRONG WITH THIS SITUATION??”

    You also didn’t condemn her. There is this false belief that Christianity doesn’t do that. This is crazy.

    @Flirty Introver,

    There’s everything to be said about solemnity and worship. The final step of the Jewish ceremony was the taking of the bride to the tent/home for consummation. Our style of that tradition is the carrying of the bride. Its an important step, and solemn. Jenifer as usual reveals her trollish nature. If she’s agreeing with you there is a problem.

    @Van,

    Hence… until they either get engaged, or break it off, he’s her boyfriend, and he’s celibate.

    Yeah…I was uncomfortable with the wording but I agree with his thrust.

    @Firepower,

    …don’t know where you are going there. I can’t assume its a joke as I don’t hear tone. But as Jesus is God the entire Old Testament. As Paul was inspired, when Paul spoke.

  167. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2012/06/12 « Free Northerner

  168. I carried my bride across the threshold. A nice custom. I had heard it was to prevent the bride from stumbling as she first crossed the threshold of her new home; or to show that she now belongs to her husband; but not that it was to do with taking her to bed for consummation, although that would make sense.

  169. ballista74 says:

    Deti wrote:

    A belief that forgiveness and repentance are only spiritual concepts that have only limited natural and physical operation.

    Rather a belief that repentance doesn’t require you to change your behavior (it does). They just keep on the path they’re on and believe that all they need to do is say their “I’m sorries” and all is well. I’m even reminded of some Catholic stories of this. Men going out on Saturday night, drinking to drunkeness, debauching it up, finding a woman, taking her home to bang her, and then stumbling into the confessional the next day. Then repeating it all over again the next Saturday.

    “Now the system assumes that a woman falling in and out of love with, and having sex with, a series of men is essential to her finding the right husband.”

    A double-standard true (this isn’t said for men), but counterproductive in the whole for either. At some point, the choice has to come. A worry no doubt (I know I think it), but at some point you got to commit to someone if you want Marriage 1.0 (not for 2.0, this is the whole essence of it). The problem for women is that they keep waiting…and waiting…and divorcing…and waiting…and they end up as spinsters with only cats for friends. And they only have themselves to blame.

    That’s the way the gospel has changed. It doesn’t recognize the “sin problem” and doesn’t proscribe getting away from it. The flesh hates the true Gospel, and will change it at every opportunity in this regard and has in most all Churchianity.

    GKChesterton:

    You also didn’t condemn her. There is this false belief that Christianity doesn’t do that. This is crazy.

    That goes along with the all you got to do is say your sorries part of the new gospel. Scripture is awash with commands to encourage and admonish and teach and so on. Now, in some circles of Churchianity, you don’t find a single admonishment in an entire church service, either in the songs or the homily/sermon/whatever. Personal boyfriend Jesus has oneitis for you just the way you are so you don’t gotta change. But I remember a time when that was almost all the time (when I first went to church). It’s really changed that fast.

    van Rooinek:

    The anti-dating, hang-out-in-groups madness that was pushed in evangelicaldom for at least a decade before it was codified into Harris’ book, acts as a VACCINE AGAINST relationships.

    Indeed. I think this is one way Churchianity has been setting out to manufacture singleness. With this, added to segregation into ministries, it’s made harder to just even meet the opposite sex within a Churchian environment. Part of the reason has been a desire to eliminate occasion for fornication. Basically, they set out to deliberately repeat what Paul did with the Corinthians (“it is not good to touch a woman” – 1 Cor 7:1) in getting them to stop their fornication.

    Lolo Jones could be married in 24 hours if she wished. Look at her! Thousands of virgin Christian men would volunteer to go to Vegas with her. She just needs to pick one. Ah, that’s the hard part.

    Yes, it’s the idea that she would actually have to (gasp) commit. She’s already married to the Olympic career, so really it’s a hard sell. Even with the virginity pledge (if genuine), there are a few other issues which would make her a harder sell for marriage from a Christian virgin, especially since there’s a few questions and obstacles she would need to deal with in order for her MMV to go up high enough. Chief is her age, and the opportunity she has had to be married if she wanted to – the question would have to be answered as to why she hasn’t. Any personality issues or the like? She might be just like Nicole Crank if you had the opportunity to see her faith in expression. Or a harpy/shrew. We just don’t know. Like you say, though, if we stick to SMV on the other end, she’s got more than enough. But will she put out once she’s been married up? Again another question that needs answered.

    The thing that is missed by any of these stories is this: If a woman’s going to remain a virgin she needs to bring a whole lot more to the table than most women have now. Really, when sex is all you have of value to offer, it’s hard to want to go past that. I don’t think the hamsters will learn this lesson.

    P Ray:

    Why are they complaining about men then? Somebody forgot the beam in their own eye.

    Because they know they can get away with it. That no one will admonish them or sanction them for it after the fact either. It’s what you get when several required sermons of the tone of Mark Driscoll’s 2009 “Men and Marriage” sermon aren’t directed at women for their sins. You know the one where he screams “How dare you” at the men, daring for someone to come on stage to punch him out.

  170. van Rooinek says:

    I can’t think of any boyfriends and girlfriends in the Bible, but I’d also never noticed that.

    Just thought of one pair. Samson and Delilah. It didn’t end well.

  171. Phantasmagoria says:

    Wasn’t that because Delilah couldn’t stand Samson having far more fabulous hair than her? His hair was pretty fabulous, those long, flowing locks of superhuman strength…

  172. Keoni Galt says:

    Wasn’t that because Delilah couldn’t stand Samson having far more fabulous hair than her? His hair was pretty fabulous, those long, flowing locks of superhuman strength…

    No, it was because Delilah kept shit-testing him, over and over again, trying to get him to cut his hair.

    Once he failed the shit test, it was all over.

  173. Opus says:

    Well (it is now morning here): I see that TFH (with more brilliant observations, agrees with me) and Dalrock and P Ray don’t – could it be that as TFH and myself are not American that this is a cultural difference? Indeed I would suggest that over here the single woman without a boyfriend has a far higher SMV by reason of her single availability than a boyfriended woman (who is thus off limits). That would certainly be my instant reaction – I would avoid women who profess to be married or have a boyfriend. One would then assume that the celibate boyfriend was a secret homosexual and that she was probably banging Harley McBadboy privately (whilst presenting herself as being more up market for public consumption) – not that anyone is being fooled. Reminds me of a woman I knew who drank a lot, whose boyfriend was a very masculine looking taciturn chap. One could tell that nothing was happening – they split and she threw herself at a thug. No one was fooled and we all thought the first boyfriend was homosexual.

    But overnight I was reminding myself as to Mr and Mrs Catholic Darwin’s views (four year celibate courtship etc) and then thought of a former freind of mine. In his early tenties (having established himself) and at about that time re-established contact with a young woman he had known as a child, who may have been a cousin (I forget). He asked her on a date and within a day or two proposed marriage. She – an arty hippy type – accepted (completely failing to find herself or sample all other males on offer to find THE ONE). Still together with seven children (five of his, one adopted and one from a man probably called Marco or Fernado). So it may not have been perfect, indeed I used to visit them to practise on their Pianoforte, (not having one of my own) and one day whilst playing Piano Duets with her, I realised she was pressing her thigh into mine. I ignored the offer as I do not sleep with married women. Marriage is thus very simple and merely requires a man to decide upon the concept and then act on the desire. Men want to marry when young. So do women. Those like Windy who waste their twenties have to live with the consequences (as we all do).

  174. Opus says:

    @TFH 08.53

    The connection between lust and violence is an interesting one, and I, have noticed that violence (usually shaking or arm punches but sometimes worse) by females (on men – they don’t do it to each other) is their way of intimating sexual interest – after all, few women can just come out and suggest a sexual encounter, without appearing slutish – so they do its exact opposite, but one should not be fooled. I am not certain they realise what they are implying or that they think they are anything other than annoyed, but men don’t do it to each other, so it must be sexual. I speak as a victim of female violence.

    @TFH 08.51
    I also much appreciate your views on arranged marriages for as you say, arranged marriages (between virgins) offer the best prospects for children. I have also felt that – alien though they seem to us in the west – they would not have been practised without good reason, and that although there may well be failures (regretfully and inevitably) the failure rate seems to be low. I was, on an earlier thread, writing about my female Pakistani acquaintance whose marriage was arranged, – her idea. Certainly cuts out the Alphas and avoids the misery that Windy has experienced, in fact I feel an inverse rule coming on: The longer you search for THE ONE the more you will come to realise that you met THE ONE in the past. You are not really searching for THE ONE, you are merely seeking something else. Not that I regret variety.

  175. If you are certain, marry. I only knew my wife for six months before we got engaged. Another six months, and she was wedded and bedded. Of course we were 30 and 25. Alte used to say that foreplay is what you do because you don’t want to have sex. Maybe long engagements are what you do if you don’t want to get married.

  176. Yes, Opus, and sometimes when my wife wants a spanking, she will threaten me with one. She did that once after a huge argument on a road trip. I didn’t back down, which turned her on something fierce. She ended up getting a quick spanking, followed by a rogering in a convenient paddock.

  177. P Ray says:

    @Opus:
    I completely agree with you that unattached single women have a higher SMV than those who aren’t. I do not see where we disagree, and if you thought I was speaking about mens’ views, I wasn’t.
    I was articulating the female point of view, that many women hold that “they are worthy of EVEN MORE courtship and commitment from another guy, if they already have a “boyfriend” “.
    and on the other side of things, people like to say MRA’s/MGTOW have to fight against the PUA’s.
    That whole idea collapses the moment one accepts that women choose the men they want to be with.
    Women do not get the chance to claim victimhood … if they want to be treated as equals.
    Neither do they get the chance to claim the only men they want … are the men who earn double the salary of an average man, if they want a family. You HAVE TO TAKE THE LOWERED STANDARDS OF LIVING IF YOU WANT TO BE AN SAHM- after all, “love is NOT about money”.
    The PUA deals with the women who can accept him.
    The MRA/MGTOW deals with the women who can accept him.
    … as the internet meme goes … “Problem?”

  178. Off topic, I crossed your namesake road and the bridge at 2PM yesterday Dalrock, I should have snapped a pic and posted it. Dalrock Rd……I assume it has some proximity to you, thats not a question, Im not helping the evil powers take a bead on you.

  179. deti says:

    van Rooinek:

    “Lolo Jones could be married in 24 hours if she wished. Look at her! Thousands of virgin Christian men would volunteer to go to Vegas with her. She just needs to pick one. Ah, that’s the hard part.”

    This really resonates with me, and applies not only to Lolo Jones but also to most women. Jones could have her choice of any one of a hundred righteous alpha Christian men who would walk her down the aisle tomorrow, no questions asked.

    But more or less the same applies to your garden variety run of the mill 22 year old girl from Anytown USA, MaryJane Girlnextdoor, with a partner count of 5 or less. She could get at least a few of the good beta men she grew up with to marry her. Surely she could be compatible with one or two of them. All she would have to do is drop the attitude, be nice and pleasant, put a little work into her appearance, and choose to do the work to make her marriage work, and she could get and stay married. But as we all know, hypergamy made mince meat of that long ago. None of those men are anywhere near good enough for MaryJane.

    In today’s society, MaryJane gave her virginity at 15 to a 16 YO basketball stud, had an LTR her junior year and an ONS her senior year, so she has an N of 3 before she even gets to college. A couple more LTRs in college gets her to 5, assuming she’s relatively chaste. Most betas would overlook that and wife her up in a heartbeat if she were nice, pleasant, looked good, and was hardworking in the marriage.

    Funny thing is, MaryJane is the kind of girl you used to see portrayed in John Ford movies who lived happily ever after with the George Baileys of the world.

  180. Phantasmagoria says:

    You know, this reminds me of something. You know that quote that a lot of women seem to love these days, that Marilyn Monroe one? This one;

    “I’m selfish, impatient and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I am out of control and at times hard to handle. But if you can’t handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don’t deserve me at my best.”

    I find it kinda funny that it seems to be the same women who love this quote to death who are also hooking up with John Q Alpha multiple times in their 20′s and expecting the poor betas to marry her in her 30′s and give her kids.

    Now, barring in mind that Marilyn Monroe really isn’t the kind of role model girls want, why is this quote so popular in this day and age?

  181. Phanta, not sure, but I think each woman has a certain level of toughness, and tougher, harder women need the hardest men. I had a fiancee I couldn’t cope with, but on rare occasions she seemed to respond to very firm treatment. But I couldn’t supply this regularly enough. I think she eventually married a very hard man. The girl I actually married is no shrinking violet either, but I can handle her.

    The man has to be a match for the woman. Some women are just tough customers.

  182. Dalrock says:

    @van Rooinek

    Hence… until they either get engaged, or break it off, he’s her boyfriend, and he’s celibate.

    I was my wife’s “celibate boyfriend” for 6 months. Then I proposed, and I was her fiance for 6 months. Then, I became her husband.

    Language lesson over.

    Why not be more precise and state it as it was:

    I was my wife’s suitor for 6 months. Then I proposed, and I was her fiance for 6 months. Then, I became her husband.

    or:

    I courted my wife for 6 months. Then I proposed, and I was her fiance for 6 months. Then, I became her husband.

    Based on what you describe, I’m fairly confident that she wasn’t looking for a boyfriend and you weren’t looking for a girlfriend. She was looking for a husband and you were looking for a wife. Right?

    So then why do you feel the need to cover for those who are doing differently, by sheltering their very different intentions with your own?

  183. SunshineMary says:

    deti wrote: “All she would have to do is drop the attitude, be nice and pleasant, put a little work into her appearance, and choose to do the work to make her marriage work, and she could get and stay married. ”

    I don’t understand why they don’t. Are there any young women who comment here who can explain the thinking behind this? The majority of women who comment here have been married for a long time, so our thoughts don’t count.

  184. Jacquie says:

    Dalrock says:
    “Based on what you describe, I’m fairly confident that she wasn’t looking for a boyfriend and you weren’t looking for a girlfriend. She was looking for a husband and you were looking for a wife. Right?”

    This is exactly why my husband and I had a hard rule for our children all through their growing up-’You don’t date until you graduate.’ We got alot of pressure about this rule, not from our children, but from others around us, mostly adults, especially family. Everyone thought it was so cute when little Johnny would go out with little Sally, and thought I was keeping my children from the real world. Hell right I was.

    We explained it to our children this way- dating is for the purpose of finding a spouse. Since you don’t need a spouse until after you graduate HS you don’t need to date. They were permitted on group outings if appropriate, but no dating. (we had to modify this though for our youngest when she graduated at 16, she had to wait until she was 18)

  185. MackPUA says:

    From Makows site ….

    Angie said (May 8, 2009):

    “I am a single woman who was raised in the traditional family model and have become very frustrated at what I find on the dating scene.

    Every man I have dated so far only want three things in life, porn, video games and to be unemployed. In my opinion men today want women to go to work and bring home the paycheck so they can sit in front of a computer and watch porn or play video games 18 hours a day.

    I become very angry when I hear the attitude people of today have towards porn, it’s always “men are visual creatures, every man looks at porn”. The way I see it is when a man loves a woman and either wants to marry her or already has he has no need for porn or strip clubs. She will be everything he needs to satisfy his “visual hunger”. I will not accept a man who watches porn or goes to strip clubs. I will not tolerate a man who refuses to have a good job, meaning he isn’t just working part time at McDonalds at the age of 40.

    The younger generation worry me. I am in my late 30′s and can see in the younger men a terrible attitude towards hard work and being successful in life. It seems to me that they no longer value finding good jobs and working toward the goal of supporting a wife. I love my career and will continue to work until I retire, but I would like to find that one man who shares the same views and values that I have. I hope that more men and women will wake up and see the deceite before it is too late.”

  186. Dalrock says:

    @MackPUA

    Quoting Angie from Makows site:

    “I am a single woman who was raised in the traditional family model and have become very frustrated at what I find on the dating scene….

    The younger generation worry me. I am in my late 30′s and can see in the younger men a terrible attitude towards hard work and being successful in life.”

    An oh so traditional woman single and still looking for a man (or perhaps a post marital spinster) in her late 30s.

  187. SunshineMary says:

    MackPUA quoted: “The younger generation worry me. I am in my late 30′s and can see in the younger men a terrible attitude towards hard work and being successful in life. It seems to me that they no longer value finding good jobs and working toward the goal of supporting a wife. I love my career and will continue to work until I retire, but I would like to find that one man who shares the same views and values that I have. I hope that more men and women will wake up and see the deceite before it is too late.”

    Wow, just wow. How can that woman not see that she has contradicted herself in the same paragraph. “I will work until I die. Why won’t a man work to support me?”

  188. Dalrock says:

    @SunshineMary

    Am I correct in assuming that you were previously Sunshine, and this is your new handle?

    deti wrote: “All she would have to do is drop the attitude, be nice and pleasant, put a little work into her appearance, and choose to do the work to make her marriage work, and she could get and stay married. ”

    I don’t understand why they don’t. Are there any young women who comment here who can explain the thinking behind this? The majority of women who comment here have been married for a long time, so our thoughts don’t count.

    For the virgins looking for husbands what seems to trip them up is they feel that they should be getting at least as much attention and “fun” in the dating market as the sluts are. The mindset is generally “I’m doing it right, so I should be having even more men taking me on fantastic dates than the sluts get.” As Deti pointed out, their MMV is higher than their SMV. But they seem to get stuck focusing on the fairness of the process, and not being practical about the best way to find a husband. Part of this is simple ignorance, they just don’t understand why men won’t take a number to be their celibate boyfriend. Part of it is stubbornness.

    For the others, the attitude is that they are in the power position, and finding a husband and actually being a wife is a demotion. They need the idea of marriage at the end of the tunnel to not look pathetic, but “right now” there are alphas to bang and betas to extract attention and gifts from. Just like the virgins, they are obsessed with the excitement of the dating process. Check out Hooking Up Smart for a good sense of what the vibe is.

  189. Anonymous Reader says:

    GKChesteron
    You also didn’t condemn her. There is this false belief that Christianity doesn’t do that. This is crazy.

    But that would be judgmental, and if there is one thing in Churchianity that is taboo, it is being judgmental of women, or pretty much anyone else excepting men – especially fathers. See, women are too good and pure to be judged. Only their Jesus can judge them, and seeing as how he’s the ultimate, most awesomess Boyfriend, he never does that. “My Jesus won’t judge me”, in other words.

    Say, I wonder how many modern church songs refer to “My Jesus”?

  190. deti says:

    MackPUA:

    Want to know why Angie from Mackow’s site isn’t married? Here’s why:

    “It seems to me that they no longer value finding good jobs and working toward the goal of supporting a wife. I love my career and will continue to work until I retire ***”

    She wants a man who will get a job for the SOLE purpose of supporting HER. But she lives her life not for her husband or family, but for her career.

    She is not married because she does not really want to be married. Men know this and can tell from the way these women love their jobs.

  191. Lavazza says:

    “But if you can’t handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don’t deserve me at my best.”

    But women get really angry when men take on the same attitude.

  192. P Ray says:

    @GK Chesterton
    “Knowing methods of preventing divorce”
    Divorced men must have missed that lesson. Why don’t you tell them how they didn’t measure up, so they can make their next go last the distance?
    helping women live a sanctified life in defiance of their fallen nature is different from assuming they are incapable of feeling.”
    They have lots of feeling for the men they have one night stands with. I’m not so sure when they are done with that, that they’ll have any left for me.
    Please feel free to prove to me otherwise.

  193. deti says:

    Time to give the Q36B Space Hamsterlator a chance to stretch its legs again. I’ve had to make some major modifications here.

    “I am a single woman who was raised in the traditional family model and have become very frustrated at what I find on the dating scene.

    “Every man I have dated so far only want three things in life, porn, video games and to be unemployed. In my opinion men today want women to go to work and bring home the paycheck so they can sit in front of a computer and watch porn or play video games 18 hours a day.”

    Hamsterlation: Shame, shame, shame! You men need to man up and get jobs. Hell, I’m a woman. Pretty hard work for us women to man up and get jobs. It never occurs to me that these men are in thelr 30s like me and have never had any female attention, never had anything to strive toward, never any real reason to strive to or for anything. And it’s never occurred to me that these men are the only ones left because in college I banged Frank Fratboy; and then when I graduated I got to bang Alpha McGorgeous, go on day trips with Harley McBadboy, and party with Doug Douchebag.

    “I become very angry when I hear the attitude people of today have towards porn, it’s always “men are visual creatures, every man looks at porn”. The way I see it is when a man loves a woman and either wants to marry her or already has he has no need for porn or strip clubs. She will be everything he needs to satisfy his “visual hunger”. I will not accept a man who watches porn or goes to strip clubs. I will not tolerate a man who refuses to have a good job, meaning he isn’t just working part time at McDonalds at the age of 40.”

    Hamsterlation: If you look at porn, it’s adultery!! Shame, shame, shame! Besides, get a load of me, guys! What man would want to fap it to porn when he’s got my late 30s worn out crudded up body and shrill, harpie personality all to himself for the rest of his life! You men need to man up and get good jobs because there’s no way I’m going to support your sorry ass, but you sure as hell are going to support my saggy ass.

    “The younger generation worry me. I am in my late 30′s and can see in the younger men a terrible attitude towards hard work and being successful in life. It seems to me that they no longer value finding good jobs and working toward the goal of supporting a wife. I love my career and will continue to work until I retire, but I would like to find that one man who shares the same views and values that I have. I hope that more men and women will wake up and see the deceite before it is too late.”

    Hamsterlation: I’ve been reading Bill Bennett and Kay Hymowitz in my spare time. Men need to man up and get jobs and marry the sluts because it’s good for society, it’s good for religion, and most of all, it’s good for ME. Men need to get good jobs and work to support me and take care of me. I’m going to keep working to take care of me because hell, you can’t trust even a man with a job to do anything even half right. I love working, but the second I trick — er — dupe and fraud — no, uh, MARRY the man of my dreams, I’m quitting this shitty PR cubicle sweatshop and watching Oprah reruns, baby. I’m gonna find that one guy. He’s out there. My pastor told me so.”

  194. SunshineMary says:

    Dalrock asked, “@SunshineMary – Am I correct in assuming that you were previously Sunshine, and this is your new handle?”

    Correct, “Sunshine”, “Mary”, and “SunshineMary” are all me; I’m trying to consolidate my handles.

    Dalrock explained, “For the virgins looking for husbands what seems to trip them up is they feel that they should be getting at least as much attention and “fun” in the dating market as the sluts are. The mindset is generally “I’m doing it right, so I should be having even more men taking me on fantastic dates than the sluts get.” As Deti pointed out, their MMV is higher than their SMV. But they seem to get stuck focusing on the fairness of the process, and not being practical about the best way to find a husband. Part of this is simple ignorance, they just don’t understand why men won’t take a number to be their celibate boyfriend. Part of it is stubbornness.”

    This is a big change in attitude then from when I was single. Or maybe my attitude was never the same as my peers, which is why this is baffling to me. I was absolutely driven to find a husband as quickly as possible while I was a university student, and it didn’t occur to me that other girls might not have been having the same thoughts. In fact, until recently, I assumed girls today were thinking the way that I was back then, and that their marriage-less state must by the guys’ fault. I don’t think so now though.

  195. deti says:

    Sunshine:
    I was in college in the mid to late 1980s when hookup was just getting started.

    There were girls who would give it up. High SMV. Did I want to marry any of them? Nah.

    There were girls who would kiss and maybe play around a bit, but no sex and no taking out your d**k. Low SMV. Men who are just going for sex aren’t wasting their time on these girls. But these were the girls who got snapped up quickly as wives. They were high MMV because to a man, when seeking a wife, looks are paramount, but a close second are loyalty and fidelity. But to a man going for the easy lay, loyalty and fidelity matter not one iota.

  196. Dalrock says:

    @SunshineMary

    This is a big change in attitude then from when I was single. Or maybe my attitude was never the same as my peers, which is why this is baffling to me. I was absolutely driven to find a husband as quickly as possible while I was a university student, and it didn’t occur to me that other girls might not have been having the same thoughts. In fact, until recently, I assumed girls today were thinking the way that I was back then, and that their marriage-less state must by the guys’ fault. I don’t think so now though.

    Good point. This is partly an issue of selection bias. Certainly a large number of young women are still focused on finding a husband. The same stats which show the never married pileup show that as well. The ones who are complaining about not finding a husband tend not to be the ones who were motivated to marry and honest about their actual options.

  197. SunshineMary says:

    deti wrote, “to a man, when seeking a wife, looks are paramount, but a close second are loyalty and fidelity”

    This. This is what feminism denies. I could not have articulated that when I was a student, but I think I knew this was true regardless of what I was hearing in Women’s Studies classes. I think that this is why I was single-minded in my pursuit of marriage. I am rather plain but I knew at 22 that I was as hot as I was likely ever going to be, so I decided to strike while the iron was hot.

  198. SunshineMary says:

    “you sure as hell are going to support my saggy ass.”

    C’mon, deti, don’t hold back now. Tell it like is. lol A few months ago I might have said you were the meanest meanie in the mean manosphere for saying something like that.

  199. deti says:

    Sunshine:

    Stated another way, I’ll draw a contrast between two girls I knew in college at about the same time.

    S was a 5 at best, but did what she could with what she had and was bangable. I wanted her bad because, although she was not hot, she was cute and had a dynamite personality. (Well, I thought she was damn cute.) And she liked me a lot too. S wouldn’t give up sex to me after several dates. She drew a sexual line in the sand with me, and said “This far and no farther, deti, unless you and I are getting married. Are we getting married?”

    deti: “Hadn’t really thought about that. I’m a junior in college. You’re a senior. Still got a lot of school left. So, uh, no. Not getting married, at least not yet. So are we gonna bang or what?”

    S: “No. This far and no farther.”

    (Young and dumb deti, years before red pill.)

    Now, V was a 6, but hot to give it up. Sex on the first date, no problem. But then V flew the coop for a much alpha-er man than I in a few months.

    I didn’t marry S or V. I broke up with S, admittedly because she wouldn’t have sex with me.

    V broke up with me.

    S got married a year out of school at age 23 and is still married to him.

    V is on her second marriage.

    S was looking for a husband. She was reserving herself to men she thought were good husband material (Why she thought that of me when I was 20, I am still not sure.) S was not about to give it up for a guy who might pump and dump her. She wanted to preserve her MMV. But S was low SMV, for the same reason.

    V was high SMV though she was a 6. Her willingness to have premarital sex with a young and dumb deti artificially inflated her SMV but unwittingly started poking holes in her MMV.

  200. SunshineMary says:

    Dalrock wrote, “Certainly a large number of young women are still focused on finding a husband.”

    OK, so we have a problem. Having sex lowers their MMV. Keeping celibate boyfriends around lowers their SMV. What are they supposed to do? I mean, assuming I don’t ever really start up the red pill dating service for these girls, what are they supposed to do?

  201. deti says:

    “OK, so we have a problem. Having sex lowers their MMV. Keeping celibate boyfriends around lowers their SMV. What are they supposed to do? I mean, assuming I don’t ever really start up the red pill dating service for these girls, what are they supposed to do?”

    This is for women seeking marriage.

    1. Decide early on how far they will go with a man before marriage and then stick to it. This will filter out cads and players. (In fact, these women will earn grudging respect from cads and players. Though such men will bang sluts all day long, they have zero respect for sluts and some respect for virtuous girls. Take that FWIW.)

    2. GET STARTED EARLY. The number one mistake these girls are making is thinking they have lots of time to do this. They don’t. S is a great example. She was a 5, smack dab average. She was not hot and most men overlooked her. I didn’t because she was quite kind, funny and (I thought) cute. She was my “type”. But she was 21, a year older than I, and looking for a husband in earnest. She did it right — she got started early.

    3. Learn the difference between your SMV and your MMV. The kind of men the average college girl can bang are not the kind of men who will marry her. Alpha McGorgeous will sex her all day long, but he’ll also sex her friends, their friends and the sorority sistas. Frank Fratboy will do the same. Harley McBadboy will drop her for the next young, hot and tight thing. The point is these men are hot hot hot to bang, but none of them will ever marry her. Get realistic about who will MARRY you.

    More when I can think of it.

  202. Dalrock says:

    @SunshineMary

    OK, so we have a problem. Having sex lowers their MMV. Keeping celibate boyfriends around lowers their SMV. What are they supposed to do? I mean, assuming I don’t ever really start up the red pill dating service for these girls, what are they supposed to do?

    Take their husband search seriously from the beginning. My point was that large numbers of women still marry by their early twenties. Not as many as in the past, but it still happens.

  203. slwerner says:

    Deti – ”Time to give the Q36B Space Hamsterlator a chance to stretch its legs again. I’ve had to make some major modifications here.”

    Looks like it might still need some fine tuning.

    It seems to have missed this part:

    “Every man I have dated so far…”

    Which is should have translated as:

    ”The only sorts of men who are even willing to date me…”

    Hum???

    I wonder what we might infer about this woman if she can only attract the men at the bottom-end of the barrel?

  204. Suz says:

    SunshineMary:
    “I don’t understand why they don’t.”
    Younger women can’t answer that because they’re still too close to it. What deti described is very close to what I was. (I didn’t have much of an “attitude” and my appearance was not a problem.) I was simply stuck in a rut. You know that popular definition of insanity – doing the same thing over and over, while expecting different results? In spite of the overwhelming cultural pressure to “keep trying,” I wised up to the fact that if my behavior didn’t change, neither would my results. Such patterns are difficult for anyone to break, worse when everyone you know tells you, “You’re on the right track, you just have to persevere!”

  205. SunshineMary says:

    deti: “GET STARTED EARLY. The number one mistake these girls are making is thinking they have lots of time to do this”
    dalrock: “Take their husband search seriously from the beginning.”

    No one is telling this to girls who need to hear it. No one is saying it to their parents. All advice to Christian girls is as wrong as wrong can be. It makes me despondent.

  206. Feminist Hater says:

    No boyfriends. Go on a date, or a couple dates, get parents to vet your spouse and if within 3 months you cannot imagine marrying this person, break it off. No sex, no frills, just positive reinforcement of the ideal of marriage commitment.

    Why do women need more than 3 months of interaction with an individual to determine if they are satisfactory for marriage? My intuition tells me it’s not because they are worried about the guy himself but more over whether another man will come along who is a better.

    Also, date with seriousness from the start. You’re not dating for fun, you’re dating for a proper marriage prospect. If you’re not serious about marriage and you’re supposedly a Christian, there should be no dating, no courtship. Nothing, nada.

    This confusion arises from the misguided presumption that a young woman can play the field. There is no ‘playing the field’. Get on the search engine of finding a husband or don’t bother.

  207. Feminist Hater says:

    Should be, ‘get parents to vet your potential spouse…’.

  208. slwerner says:

    SunshineMary – ”Keeping celibate boyfriends around lowers their SMV.”

    I haven’t had a chance to read through all the comments, but I’m wondering what is the argument that having a celibate boyfriend around will lower the SMV of a Christian girl?

    It’s not as if Christian girls would be likely to take their celibate boyfriends to places (bars and parties) where they could actual take advantage of their SMV to have a chance of attracting alpha-bad boys for a hook-ups. Seems to me that their SMV (in actual Sexual Marketplace exchange locations) would still be primarily based on her looks.

  209. MackPUA says:

    @Dalrock

    Angie is indicative of a 3rd component I think the manosphere’s overlooked, for the reason why beta’s turn to pron & video games & part time work

    Traditional women used to know how nurture & court men, to their masculine best, they knew how to help their masculinity blossom, into being strong virile alpha’s

    Women knew how to use their femininity & submissiveness to help beta’s become, strong alpha’s of their communities

    Game isnt just a response to feminism, or economy, its a response to a vital part women used to play in our society which is desperately missing in our current makeup & society

    The fact is …

    A man faced with a woman who knows how to use her femininity & submissiveness, gives a man natural invincible game

    Nothing beats a woman who knows how to use her biological viles, to switch on the natural protective hulk like instincts every man has embedded in his soul

    Women know how to use the biological chemicals, pheromones to turn beta’s into hulk like, strong alphas, with ridiculous unbreakable game

    This is essentially what game is all about, triggering the natural biological switches, all men have, into becoming strong virile hulk like alpha’s

    Either you can learn game to trigger the natural biological switches, you have to become naturally dominant & aloof with women

    Or you can expat & find a naturally submissive feminine woman, who knows how to bring out the strong virile alpha in you …

    This is why, I really dont think traditional women, understand the concept of being traditional

    There’s much talk about beta males & alpha males …

    The advice we shld be giving women today, isnt to settle for a beta or marry younger, but we should be telling them how to nurture & court beta’s to help their masculinity blossom, into being strong virile alpha’s

    Women used to know how to play with all the cards they were dealt with, not just the strong ones

    A traditional woman is responsive to her husband, to the point she’s horrified somebody would argue or contradict her man, when he’s being at his masculine best

    Of course traditional women, along with modern women, exist to argue & contradict men, at their masculine best, which is why they never find a decent man to begin with

    Cutting down young men, who would care for her, instead of nurturing & courting a young mans masculinity at his best …

    Unless a woman knows how to nurture a man at his masculinity best, it will always lead to the carousel

    & most often end up with a beta, who doesnt know how to be at his masculine best …

    Of course Angie, she’s complaining, all the alpha’s she hooks up with, have ridiculous unprecedented access pussy, thanks to feminism, they have no incentive to marry

    Hell, porn & video games & working at mcdonalds, is preferable to marriage for these men, speaks volumes about exactly who benefits from marriage

    Women always find a way to way to have it all in their head, it’s a pity nobody told them the roles they used to play which led to nurturing & courting the man of their dreams

    The REAL fairy tale isnt finding the man of your dreams, the real fairy tale is nurturing & courting a man to become the man of your dreams

    Or finding a man who knows how to recognise the need for masculinity to become the man of his own dreams …

    Women used to know how to play with all the cards they were dealt with, not just the strong ones

    All women know today is how to randomly shuffle the deck, until theres no alpha’s left in the pack to play with …

  210. deti says:

    Sunshine:

    These girls should all find nice young hardworking 22 year old beta men (with some alpha) and hitch their wagons to him when both are young, and then commit to stay with him no matter what.

    But they won’t do this.

    Why? Because it would require commitment. It requires making a hard choice and sticking to it. It requires giving up your other options. It requires giving up hot monkey sex with F**kbuddy Rockbanddrummer. It requires hard work. It requires giving up some things.

    Sunshine, the advice your Christian girls are getting is the exact opposite: “You’re a daughter of the King. You’re God’s special princess. Don’t settle. Hold out for God’s best for you. He has the Perfect Man (TM) (comes with all you see here. Batteries sold separately.) for you. You can have it all — career when you’re young, marriage at 32, kids at 40.

    “Don’t worry if you’ve had premarital sex. Don’t worry if you’ve slutted it up. Just come to the altar here and say this little prayer, and you’ll be instantly revirginified and ready for marriage and motherhood. Premarital sex isn’t any big deal anyway — those little pangs you feel for your old boyfriend or the superalpha aren’t really anything. It wasn’t your fault. You were tricked into sex with them. Besides, if you’re not haaaappy in your marriage, that won’t be your fault either. It’s your husband’s job to make you haaaaappy. If he doesn’t, come on back and we’ll shame him into it. If it doesn’t work, you can divorce him and we’ll all together find a way to pin the blame on him.”

  211. Feminist Hater says:

    The real question to ask Sunshine Mary is this: Why would a woman looking for marriage need to worry about their SMV? SMV, in honesty, matters in the hook-up culture more than the marriage market. Someone correct me if I’m wrong. A man looking for a marriage minded woman is not looking at her SMV as much as he is looking at her MMV.

    A woman who is young, fit, attractive and a virgin has a high prospect for marriage. Therefore, if she’s serious about marriage being a union over her life, her SMV shouldn’t matter much at all.

  212. SunshineMary says:

    MPUA : “Cutting down young men, who would care for her, instead of nurturing & courting a young mans masculinity at his best …”

    Yes, I really agree with this. Girls are taught to ridicule men, and boys are taught to take it with a laugh and a shrug. This poison invades all areas of popular culture and the media. Men and boys are portrayed as buffoons, especially on television. This is one reason we do not have TV in our house. But also it is more pervasive. Even trying to find a Father’s Day card for my husband, I was struck by how many of the cards are faintly mocking of the father, portraying him as a lovable old dolt.

  213. P Ray says:

    @SunshineMary
    “OK, so we have a problem. Having sex lowers their MMV. Keeping celibate boyfriends around lowers their SMV.”
    Why would they be wanting a high SMV towards someone other than their celibate boyfriends whom they want to marry?
    Unless they don’t … and that celibate boyfriend is just to provide the shield of respectability when parents come-a-calling to the university, she magics up that guy …
    while when they’re gone she goes to have sex with the alpha she’s had her eye on all along?
    (Yes, I saw that happen over the course of a week while I was at university).

  214. Anonymous Reader says:

    SunshineMary
    OK, so we have a problem. Having sex lowers their MMV. Keeping celibate boyfriends around lowers their SMV. What are they supposed to do?

    You just reminded me of a couple I met the other month near a college campus. The man was 26 or so, the woman 23, maybe 24. They met in college. They married before graduation. She had her first child sometime close to graduation with some liberal arts degree. He had already graduated at the time. They have another child on the way. When her husband was away for a moment, she told me that she had her first child at the age of 21 in an apologetic tone of voice. I didn’t whip out a pair of glasses, but I did assure her that she and her husband are ok. They are doing it the right way. In the long run, odds are life will work out better this way.

    That’s what “they are supposed to do”. The college experience of my parents is gone, vanished, kaput. The structure that provided a guard-railed way for 19 year old women to “get pinned” to a 21 year old man without messing up her MMV was torn down by the Bill Clinton / George Bush leading-edge wave of the baby boom. Several waves later, here we are. So there is no point in mooning around for 4 or 5 years being “boyfriend” and “girlfriend”. If a man and a woman are compatible when he’s 23 and she’s 21, then maybe they should just get married, rather than screw around and make their lives later on that much more complicated?

  215. P Ray says:

    @SunshineMary
    “Girls are taught to ridicule men, and boys are taught to take it with a laugh and a shrug.”
    The guys the girls want can get angry at this treatment … and they’ll be lauded for it.
    The guys the girls do not want, if they get angry at this treatment … get told “I don’t like angry boys, I only like nice boys”
    or
    “If you are angry, no woman will like you”
    which segues into Richard’s Rebuttal
    “If women did not get involved with men who got angry or men who hated women … then all the violence in domestic/intimate partner relationships is the fault of women” :)
    I love logic, it makes sense.

  216. P Ray says:

    @MackPUA:
    Women don’t dare build up men that other women have scorned – they need herd approval.
    Women are also afraid that the men other women scorn, when built up, will trade up and move on.

  217. Anonymous Reader says:

    And that’s why I regard the Darwii “4-year plan” as a form of sadism. Sure, that’s how life was on college campuses for the most part back before WWII, and to a large extent in the 50′s. But that world is gone. Even on the cloistered religious campus, I am certain that there were temptations for Mr. Darwin, and to have the future Mrs. Darwin close but untouchable for years may have worked for him, but for a lot of men it would not. And there’s no way for that to work very well at Average State University, where the both of them are surrounded by hookup city, where he’s supposed to remain celibate, even when the social proofing of having a “girlfriend” brings random other women to drop IOI’s into his lap. Better for them both to marry and either live in on campus family housing or move off campus – and become young adults, rather than extended adolescents.

  218. van Rooinek says:

    me: I was my wife’s “celibate boyfriend” for 6 months. Then I proposed, and I was her fiance for 6 months. Then, I became her husband. Language lesson over.

    Dalrock: Why not be more precise and state it as it was:
    I was my wife’s suitor for 6 months. Then I proposed, and I was her fiance for 6 months. Then, I became her husband.
    or:
    I courted my wife for 6 months. Then I proposed, and I was her fiance for 6 months. Then, I became her husband.

    Because whether we like it or not, as soon as she and I started dating exclusively, the words that English speaking people normally use for that, are “boyfriend” and “girlfriend”. As I explained earlier, we probably need to come up with new terms and popularize them, but for now, that is the terminology most people use to describe them.

    Suitor would be good, but, it’s an old word that’s unlikely to make a comeback. Most people would immediately translate that to “boyfriend”, assuming they were literate enough to know, from the old books, what suitor actually means. We need to come up with a cool new word for “chaste dating with matrimonial intent”, and make it fashionable…. I did ask for suggestions.

    As for courting, I am violently allergic to that word because of its association with the “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” disaster. Those of us whose family lineages survived IKDG — by which I mean, we managed to get married and have kids IN SPITE of it — will hate it and distrust it forever.

    Based on what you describe, I’m fairly confident that she wasn’t looking for a boyfriend and you weren’t looking for a girlfriend. She was looking for a husband and you were looking for a wife. Right?

    Neither of us were looking for a permanent, go-nowhere “boyfriend’/girlfriend” situation that is typical of the forniculture. As Christians, we are obligated to be celibate until marriage, therefore any BF/GF relationship could only be a temporary situation til the question of marry/not marry was resolved.

    So then why do you feel the need to cover for those who are doing differently, by sheltering their very different intentions with your own?

    I feel no desire whatesoever to cover for those who do differently — far from it — and I am not shelternig anybody else’s wicked intentions. I merely point out that, in present English usage, when I was dating my wife exclusively, i was called her “boyfriend”. That’s the word people, including Christians, actually use in day to day conversation. Nobody that I can recall, used the word “suitor” or “courter” or whatever.

  219. sunshinemary says:

    deti wrote: “These girls should all find nice young hardworking 22 year old beta men (with some alpha) and hitch their wagons to him when both are young, and then commit to stay with him no matter what.
    But they won’t do this.
    Why? Because it would require commitment. It requires making a hard choice and sticking to it. It requires giving up your other options. It requires giving up hot monkey sex with F**kbuddy Rockbanddrummer. It requires hard work. It requires giving up some things.”

    This will not be an easy sell to young women.

    Choice 1 is pretty pretty princess fantasy land
    Choice 2 is the law and the long hard road

    We can probably influence our own daughters. Everyone else appears to be doomed.

  220. TFH says:

    could it be that as TFH and myself are not American that this is a cultural difference?

    I am American (born in the US), but from immigrant parents..

  221. Suz says:

    MackPUA
    11.37 am
    YES!!!!!

  222. Jacquie says:

    MackPUA says:
    “The REAL fairy tale isn’t finding the man of your dreams, the real fairy tale is nurturing & courting a man to become the man of your dreams
    Or finding a man who knows how to recognize the need for masculinity to become the man of his own dreams …”

    Isn’t this also what a couple could learn even after the wedding, after many years of marriage, after they realize that they are tired of living the status quo? If they can break away, ingest the red pill, listen to the truth, open their eyes and see what reality is, it’s never too late for the fairy tale. If both are willing, then masculinity and femininity find their rightful places then the entire relationship blooms. If they stop concerning themselves with what society and pop culture tells them marriage should be, stop trying to get more out of the relationship for themselves and begin putting more in, meeting the needs of the other, then they would never feel that their own needs aren’t being met because the focus would be off of self and on the one you made a vow to.

    Am I just being too optimistic again? I read what MackPUA wrote and saw my own life in overhaul. I’m no one special, I can’t be the exception. If it’s possible for my husband and me, I have to think that it must be possible for anyone.

    @MackPUA
    I really did like all of what you said. It gave me a lot to think on and understand, words to the many things I’ve been trying to sort out but didn’t know how to put it. Thank you.

  223. TFH says:

    In summary, my view on arranged marriages is that while it does place sacrifices on both bride and groom…..

    i) The risks and sacrifices are equally distributed between both.
    ii) The sacrifice ensures that all children grow up with both biological parents, all four grandparents, etc. If this is important, then the system meets its goal. Somehow, America no longer thinks this is an important part of child well-being.

    So arranged marriages are about the well-being of children, period.

    Also, the failure rate is low. But this is because everyone does it, so the arranged married couple has merely done the same thing as everyone else they know. This makes the failure rate low.

  224. TFH says:

    An oh so traditional woman single and still looking for a man (or perhaps a post marital spinster) in her late 30s.

    A traditional woman would be married no later than age 24. That is twenty four, not thirty four.

    That some foolish woman in her late 30s is still single and calls herself ‘traditional’ merely means she is using the label and the church to morally preen and deliver shaming language from a supposed position of authority.

    Pathetic.

  225. Dalrock says:

    @Van Rooinek

    I merely point out that, in present English usage, when I was dating my wife exclusively, i was called her “boyfriend”. That’s the word people, including Christians, actually use in day to day conversation. Nobody that I can recall, used the word “suitor” or “courter” or whatever.

    My point is the vast majority of the time Christians use the term they are talking about a celibate version of the same thing non Christians are talking about. I would guess around 90% of the time. Yet all you want to talk about the 10%, the corner case. This is maddening. I’m addressing something real, don’t you agree?

    I’m not calling you foolish for chastely courting your wife. This isn’t even about you, or me. It is about our culture, about Christian culture.

  226. Elspeth says:

    I do think that you addressing something real Dalrock, this tendency of Christians (both male and female from what I’ve witnessed) to dabble around with multiple partners from the age of 18 knowing full well they have no intention of marrying until they have completed their Master’s degree.

    I think Van is arguing against the derogatory use of the word “boyfriend” when Christians with the most serious intentions also use the word for lack of a better one. Even though I agree with his points, he is personalizing. (I will resist the urge to posit that only women are supposedly prone to this tendency, ROFL).

    You’re on to something here, though and it needs to be addressed. The problem with this cultural trend infiltrating the church is that the relationships are rarely true courtships nor are they often chaste. Christian parents are fooling themselves, really. Van often mentions that book he hates by Josh Harris. I’ve read it, as have my girls, which I rather regret now in retrospect for a whole host of reasons. In it even Harris admits that while he never went “all the way” his relationships before he “kissed dating goodbye” were rarely chaste.

    What I can’t figure is why parents are so committed to the idea of waiting until college and career are done before marrying that they would risk their daughters and sons engaging in sinful behavior. It’s really absurd. Our girls have been told in no uncertain terms that it is foolish to pass by potential suitors and possible marriage in favor of waiting until they finish college. And dating without serious intentions is a no-no. Which is why they don’t date. Period. No reason to when you’re still in high school and not marriage aged.

  227. TFH says:

    deti,

    She wants a man who will get a job for the SOLE purpose of supporting HER. But she lives her life not for her husband or family, but for her career.

    I am actually glad that she didn’t manage to prey on some poor beta male…

    This is why Sunday Morning Nightclub is noble – it shields beta males from predatory church sluts.

  228. AnonS says:

    Wasn’t the point of Kiss Dating Goodbye to point out the boyfriend/girlfriend problem and call for relationship to focus on getting to the engagement and marriage phase?

    It seemed the issue was the girls took it to mean “I won’t see anyone unless I want to marry them” paired with “I don’t want to marry him, I don’t know enough about him.” Much like having a real estate agent take you to a house and you saying from the car “I don’t want to buy that I haven’t seen it yet.”

    When culture painted a view of men of guilty until proven innocent, girls just assume the ‘inside of the house’ is bad and judge from appearances/tingle. So they end up not giving any guys a shot and holding out for God’s perfect man.

  229. deti says:

    Dalrock:

    ” ** the vast majority of the time Christians use the term [boyfriend] they are talking about a celibate version of the same thing non Christians are talking about. I would guess around 90% of the time. *** I’m addressing something real, don’t you agree?

    *** It is about our culture, about Christian culture.”

    Perhaps I’m being overly cynical, but: Are you sure that most of the time, Christians assume a BF and GF are NOT sleeping together? I am not so sure I agree with this. I think there are a lot of Christians in today’s culture who hope BFs and GFs are not having sex, but most are smart enough not to assume there is no sex going on.

    I am not saying chastity never happens. I am saying that Christians HOPE BFs and GFs are chaste. I don’t agree most Christians assume chastity is the norm for BFs and GFs.

  230. Elspeth says:

    Yes AnonS,

    That was partly the point of I Kissed Dating Goodbye. The problem I came to realize however, is that the model Harris proposes for finding a mate (mainly be friends first), sets young people up with unrealistic expectations. I know this because of how my own daughter interpreted the book. She’ll be 18 in few weeks.

    She decided that dating of any kind, even a cup of coffee to get to know a young man, is a no no. That she’ll make friends with a young man and they’ll be friends for years, and one day, lightning will strike, and they’ll decide that they were meant for each other all along. It’s be nice for her if it works out that way, but it rarely does.

    So while I agree with Harris that serial dating with no serious intentions is bad, I disagree with him that dating with the express purpose of finding a husband or wife is bad. Most men aren’t as privileged as he was to have their pick of Christian maidens. And most Christian men and women today are navigating in a landmine, not a cloistered community of people where it’s fairly easy to find a suitable mate. You can’t even be too sure who you can trust in the church. So the idea that you just hold out and do nothing until the Holy Spirit shines a Divine light on “the one” complete with a voice from on high is a bad strategy.

    He said some good things in his book, and I’m not dismissing all of it. I just don’t know if his blueprint is one that can work for all, or even most young, marriage minded Christians.

  231. Elspeth says:

    Call me naive Deti, but when I am fairly familiar with the faith and devotion of the young couple in question, I DO assume that they are not having sex. There have been few I can say that about, but I have known a few. I know a couple now that I feel confident saying they are not having sex even though they use the terms boyfriend and girlfriend.

    While I think most Christian parents are in denial about whether Princess Suzy and her BF Johnny are having sex, I do think most of them assume their Christian kids are not having sex until the evidence mounts and they can’t deny it anymore.

  232. deti says:

    Elspeth:

    I’m not saying it’s naivete. I’m saying it’s denial, as you said. Most Christians want to believe there’s no sex going on, but know there is (wink wink nudge nudge); or are simply in denial because they don’t want to believe what they suspect or know to be true.

  233. Dalrock says:

    Deti,

    I think what you are pointing out is the vaguery around the terms, a vaguery which is accidental (on purpose). This is certainly part of the problem.

  234. van Rooinek says:

    My point is the vast majority of the time Christians use the term [boyfriend] they are talking about a celibate version of the same thing non Christians are talking about. I would guess around 90% of the time. Yet all you want to talk about the 10%, the corner case. This is maddening. I’m addressing something real, don’t you agree?

    I don’t believe I’m talking about 10% at all. In my experience, the “celibate version of the same thing non Christians are talking about”, just doesn’t exist. EITHER (a) the couple is fornicating just like nonChristians — all too common in the church, alas, you are quite right about that…. OR… (b) they are moving toward a marry/don’t marry decision.

    Ask yourself — what guy wants to date a girl forever, without SOME KIND of sexual goal in mind? Either he wants to seduce her OR he’s contemplating marrying her, but either way, as soon as he’s sure that sex is NEVER going to happen, he’s outta there.

    Unless he beta-orbits in the friendzone hoping someday she’ll change her mind. But that type of relationship doesn’t come under any definition of “boyfriend”, far from it: “Oh, No!!! — he’s not my boyfriend — [unspoken: Perish the thought!] — we’re just friends”.

    So… no.. I don’t see the celibate “permanent boyfriend” phenomenon at all. I never did it myself, and now that I think about it for a while, I can’t recalll anyone else who did either. They all eventually either fornicated, or got married, or broke up…. or some combination of those. In all fairness however, Elspeth asserts she HAS seen this:

    I do think that you addressing something real Dalrock, this tendency of Christians (both male and female from what I’ve witnessed) to dabble around with multiple partners from the age of 18 knowing full well they have no intention of marrying until they have completed their Master’s degree

    When I was a student almost nobody wanted to talk to me, so my viewpoint is limited by my experiences. But I would ask Elspeth: what percentage of these relationships are not sexually active? What on earth are they doing dating, if they are not sexually interested in each other? And if they have no intention of marrying, then we can only assume that sinful sex — not ceibate BF/GF relationships — are going on. And maybe that’s why I got so few dates, the girls sensed my serious intent and they just wanted to play.

  235. van Rooinek says:

    Elspeth: [my daughter] decided that dating of any kind, even a cup of coffee to get to know a young man, is a no no. That she’ll make friends with a young man and they’ll be friends for years, and one day, lightning will strike…

    One more thing and I am done with this thread (not angry.. just tired of it). Solemnly warn your daughter, to never, never, never let the phrase, “I don’t date”, pass her lips. NEVER. Because most guys interpret this, as total, irrevocable romantic unavailablity to everyone.

    If she’s interested in a guy, and he asks her out, she’d better have an alternate plan in place. As in, “I’d like to get to know you, but I approach relationships a bit differently, and conventional dating isn’t my thing, so let’s [........ .] instead.” Never, never, never say, “I don’t date”.

    Even if she’s asked out by someone she’s not interested in, a polite “No Thanks” is the right way to turn him down. If she drops the “I don’t date” atom bomb as a way of fending off the unwanted, he may sadly tell his friends later, “Yea, I asked her out, but she doesn’t date!” — and the guy she IS interested in, may hear about it and never try! This is tantamout to friendzoning all mankind!

  236. deti says:

    “I think what you are pointing out is the vaguery around the terms, a vaguery which is accidental (on purpose). This is certainly part of the problem.”

    I need to think this through. I’ve had BF/GF experiences but they were all sexual to a degree. Maybe not P in V but there was sexual attraction. Also had hookups, ONSs and STRs. But i wasn’t a BF and they weren’t my GF.

    Frankly, few people really talk about the purpose behind the “dating”, or “relationship”. Most times in popular culture dating and hookups are for fun. Marriage isn’t really part of the equation.

    In Christian circles, dating or courtship (Sorry, vR) is to assess whether another is marriage material — or at least it should be. But I don’t think many Christians approach dating that way. And if they are not BF/GF and they are evaluating each other for marriage, then what are they?

    As a younger man I confess I often did not approach it that way. Most of the time when seeking a date I was seeking sex. Sometimes I got it, most times I didn’t. It was only after dating had gone on for a time that I started thinking about whether the girl was marriage material. Most of the time she was not, but who cares? Marriage was a long way off, to be considered seriously at some indeterminate time in the future. Before meeting Mrs. deti I can say I dated 4 women who I considered marriageworthy, The vast majority I knew, dated or regularly socialized with were, of course, not anywhere near marriageworthy.

    I guess the point is that if Christians are going to get serious about revolutionizing the way they approach dating, they need to take Elspeth’s approach: No dating until you’re marriageworthy; and don’t date unless you’re seriously considering finding a mate to marry. Once you decide a girl or boy is not compatible, you break it off because it’s never going anywhere anyway.

  237. van Rooinek says:

    and PS. A patronizing, pious, public declaration of “I don’t date”, is a particularly nasty form of nuclear rejection, all the more so because she can convince herself she’s being spiritual even as she humiliates a decent man.

  238. greyghost says:

    Mack PUA
    Outstanding post. You half just given all of us all something to think about. Solid honest beta men have everything a father would want for his daughter and grand child. Only he in the current climate doesn’t have the gina tingle. Femminist culture took away his gina tingling masculinity because the beta by basic nature has empathy for others and gave it up for the good of society. Alphas don’t care they openly display masculin characteristics that bring on the gina tingle but they have no empathy and can’t be shamed into concerning themselves with anything or any one other than themslves or image. ( a rather womanly way to do things). Showing women a role they can have in their own well being that doesn’t involve the government talking joy from others and passing it on to them does a family good. Why shouldn’t a women feel comfortable with a good solid boring beta man and be sexually aroused and proud of her man she chose based on his boringness. ( a joking way to describe a reliable honest man). Feminized society constantly tells women to belittle their husbands and glamerizes hypergamy. Women are constantly made to feel insecure about themselves for being themselves. An example would be in the manosphere it is said and documented over and over again and half of Dalrocks articles are about women’s aversion to responsibility and judgement and the church rolling over to it. I think it is normal and natural for women to feel that way. God knows it so he directs women to marry and submit to her husband. Think of what MackPUA posted and imagine the full life a woman had following scripture. Instead of competing with your husband and constantly doubting and looking for something better being a new purchase, a new job, a better degree, more kids,less kids to be resingled, etc. etc. you can feel content and enjoy your life in peace..

  239. Jacquie says:

    I have to say I thought the same thing, my naivety hit me hard when my daughter filled me in on her best friend.

    This was a girl that everyone epitomized as the finest Christian girl. She was everything that a parent of a son would want in a future daughter-in-law. She met a man while away on a year long mission work and they got together. They eventually got engaged and many thought he wasn’t good enough for her. Some even got a bit nasty about her marrying him. My daughter being her best friend was privy to what was really going on before the wedding. They still married with her being a “technical virgin” but did everything else including penetration of another type.

    I don’t know, does the fact that they eventually engaged and married make a difference? And I’m not really sure if the behavior went on before they engaged or only after the ring went on her finger.

  240. Elspeth says:

    But I would ask Elspeth: what percentage of these relationships are not sexually active? What on earth are they doing dating, if they are not sexually interested in each other?

    I actually believe a large percentage of Christians who start down the dating path even though they’re not ready for marriage have every intention of remaining chaste. I honestly believe that. However, they overestimate their ability to withstand temptation and they fall precisely because they are sexually attracted to the person they’re dating. Lots of alone time with someone you’re attracted to with no date in sight to make it official is a bad idea.

    Solemnly warn your daughter, to never, never, never let the phrase, “I don’t date”, pass her lips. NEVER. Because most guys interpret this, as total, irrevocable romantic unavailablity to everyone.

    We’ve already covered that and actually she is beginning to see the folly of her plan that isn’t really a plan at all. She understands a few things now that she didn’t after her initial excitement over the possibility of not dating at all, LOL. Namely, that extremes in some things are not the best way to go. She no longer says that she’ll never date.

  241. Firepower says:

    GKChesterton says:

    @Firepower,

    …don’t know where you are going there.

    So why does Paul’s word top Jesus’ Word?

    Where did Jesus ever talk about chastity in the Bible?

    Nobody here, in the sea of a thousand posters
    seems to want to answer.

  242. Joshua says:

    MATTHEW 18:18

  243. Elspeth says:

    Okay Firepower:

    And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.Matthew 19:9

    But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.Matthew 5:32

    But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Matthew 5:28

    Or do you suppose that chastity is only for the single? Now, you can say that Jesus doesn’t specifically condemn fornication for men, and I have known a few believing men who have put forth that argument, as well as arguing in favor of polygyny.

    However, you cannot say that Jesus didn’t preach chastity. What’s more the Church universal believes that the epistles of Paul are inspired and sacred, and Divine. The entire OT includes none of the words of Jesus, and yet when He came, those are the Scriptures he read and preached from. Are we to dismiss those, too?

  244. deti says:

    Firepower:

    You’re clearly trolling, so this will be my first and last reply to you:

    Matthew 5:31-32. Sermon on the Mount, the injunction against adultery

    John 8:3-4. Jesus tells the woman caught in adultery/fornication and about to be stoned to death “Neither do I condemn you. Now go, and sin no more.” (the exhortation to chastity meaning no sex outside marriage is clearly implied)

    Seems pretty clear to everyone here, except you.

  245. Elspeth says:

    And the men I know who have put forth the idea that a man can have a harem also believe that said man needs to be able to support said women (additional wives) with the fruit of his own labor. Which is why none of them has more than one wife, and express no desire to add another, LOL.

    No, we don’t believe in that personally. We believe the Scriptures teach that each man is to have his own wife, singular. But we are blessed to be related to and acquainted with a diverse and colorful group of friends and relations.

  246. Rico says:

    2 Timothy 3:16

    Man, red letter types really stick in my craw :)

  247. What is the purpose of discussing whether a particular kid couple is or isnt having sex, and especially what is the point in suggesting a specific person is naive about it? May be true, may not, but its kind of a crazy argument.
    Yea, they mostly are having sex…..
    Ive got 2 kids dating, a 21 yr old girl, a 19 yr old boy.
    I know that I know, the girl is sexually active, so far, the boy is not, and has even broken off a relationship to keep it that way, he is a rare boy, and Im so thrilled because not only does he have a pragmatic faith that he acts on, he is not a mindless Christian but a very very analytical and thoughtful one. Not only that but he is red pill BIG TIME at 19, having watched me go red pill during my 1.5 years of separation and almost divorce, he learned and is a keen observer of churchianity and evangelical feminism to the point he wants no entanglements including sexual ones that will afford any woman/girl any distraction from his goals, which are not some driven thing, he simply wants to be a bachelor degree nurse but wants to do it all well.

  248. deti says:

    “Yea, they mostly are having sex…..”

    That’s my point, Empath.

  249. Dalrock says:

    @van Rooinek

    So… no.. I don’t see the celibate “permanent boyfriend” phenomenon at all. I never did it myself, and now that I think about it for a while, I can’t recalll anyone else who did either. They all eventually either fornicated, or got married, or broke up…. or some combination of those.

    I never said it was permanent. We are talking about serial monogamy, in this case without the sex. See this Boundless article for one example. Note that the woman in question fell in love with an alpha (she claims she wasn’t “physical” with) and when he dumped her she found another celibate boyfriend. She is writing in because she is afraid boyfriend number two, her beta boyfriend of two years, is going to propose marriage and she just isn’t into him. While the Boundless author calls the young woman out on “playing marriage” with the alpha, she says the two year boyfriend of convenience “sounds like a sensible, wise leading-up-to-marriage courtship”. Off the top of my head, I know of a pastor whose daughter has had a celibate boyfriend for two years now, and while he is crazy about her she is not interested in marrying him. Haley’s post Why Christian girls have so few boyfriends also comes to mind.

  250. Professor Ashur says:

    “As I explained earlier, we probably need to come up with new terms and popularize them, but for now, that is the terminology most people use to describe them. “

    Prospective wage mule?

  251. pb says:

    [Christian] girls who are dating because they don’t want to be lonely and enjoy the dates or the money being spent on them… they may not date the guy for too long, but it happens.

  252. Anonymous Reader says:

    The celibate boyfriend status is not permanent, van R. It isn’t forever.

    But I bet it feels like forever to the young man…and then she dumps him.

  253. P Ray says:

    @Dalrock:
    Don’t know if this is relevant to you … but I find Boundless hypocritical.
    In that they say they are open to frank and honest dialogue, and that both people in marriage being virgins is right.

    … I agree with that myself, which is why I recommend any marriage minded men should be sending their prospects to be tested.
    Objections to that should be taken in the right spirit.
    “Trust but verify” and all that. Since 80% of the women are only having sex with 20% of the men, I don’t see why the 80% of men competing for the 20% of women should think that commitment and love comes without proof of chastity .

    Then Boundless go ahead and delete all the contributions made by Bethany Torode / Bethany Patchin, who was a virgin (and so was her husband) who later went on to get divorced.
    That’s … boundless hypocrisy.

  254. P Ray says:

    This was the page I got directed to:
    http://www.boundless.org/bestofchronological/author.cfm?authorname=Bethany+Patchin+and+Sam+Torode
    Why have a page … for authors with no content?

  255. Here might be a different point of view from experience. Remaining celibate and holy today takes a very very serious walk with Jesus. Any person who has a serious walk with God and is overcoming the availability of lust/ temptation by their close relationship with Christ( the cross become becomes bearable and enjoyable due a increasing fear of God). At this level ( serious discipleship) it is waiting on God for His choice and not one’s own choice.
    In addition, they have a pretty serious prayer life and a very serious criteria and the goal is not falling in deception if they are truly celibate.
    Everyone is kept at a “arms length” till they demonstrate they are ” the real deal” celibate disciple of Jesus. It becomes a “deep” calling to “deep” of which very few people are worthy.

  256. Opus says:

    I remember one young woman, I used to know; knew pretty well as we worked together in the same room, and she rather liked me (I was off limits as I had an LTR at that time – big mistake) anyway, she had a boyfriend called Malcolm (for some reason they are always called Malcolm) and they had been dating since the year dot. Of course I never enquired whether they were intimate. ‘Should I marry him Opus?’ she used to ask. God knows what I said for on the one hand, then again on the other. She was a bit scraggy, and not very together, but she was a young trainee lawyer and clearly about to go somewhere. Then she met a lawyer friend of mine – it had never occured to me that she was fanciable – and he seemed to have high standards, when the next thing one learned was that she was engaged. I was gobsmacked (as we say). Strange thing was that almost over night this ungainly (though petite) woman transformed into a Swan. The last time I saw her she was at some dinner dance surrounded by adoring young men. She is still married I believe. The moral being that LTRs should be avoided, by both the man and the woman.

    The verse that Firepower is obviously looking for by the way is:

    Blessed are the Boyfriends; for they shall be Chaste: Matthew Ch V verse 49, which is inexplicably missing from the King James.

  257. van Rooinek says:

    Here might be a different point of view from experience. Remaining celibate and holy today takes a very very serious walk with Jesus. .. Everyone is kept at a “arms length” till they demonstrate they are ” the real deal” celibate disciple of Jesus. It becomes a “deep” calling to “deep” of which very few people are worthy

    I thought I was done here but I had to chime in on this one….. Michael, I think you really missed the point of what’s going on here. This discussion is about people who DON’T want to STAY celibate. We want to move — or we want our children to move — in the direction of marriage. A “celibate boyfriend”, in that context, is (at best) an exploratory status until the marry/don’t marry decision is made, and (at worst), the victim of fraud — a woman is using him for entertainment, meals, emotional support yet KNOWS she will never marry him… but she doesn’t let HIM know that. (I may have had this happen episodically but never as a long term affair; other posters here assert that some girls string guys along for years.)

    Surely you can agree that the rare person who has a celibate CALLING — I’ve known a few, they do exist — should not have any sort of dating, courting, or romance going on at all — since these things are all intended to lead, eventually, to sex. (Hopefully, to the marital altar first… but the desired endpoint is always sex.) Such a person who decides to be someone’s “celibate boyfriend”, is stirring up desires that he cannot possibly hope to satisfy, given that his calling is permanent celibacy.

  258. Feminist Hater says:

    Opus says:

    The verse that Firepower is obviously looking for by the way is:

    Blessed are the Boyfriends; for they shall be Chaste: Matthew Ch V verse 49, which is inexplicably missing from the King James.

    Ah yes Opus. Quite correct.

    You will find said Chapter and Verse in the New Feminist Princess Vajayjay Version. The King James Version is nothing but a horror from the Patriarchy.

    I prefer this though, Luke Chapter V, Verse 10.

    Glory to thy vajayjay; and holy be its bounty. For thine prince shall melt at its cometh and it shall slayeth Dragons.

  259. greyghost says:

    Van Rooinek
    You have just defined a chump. And another variance of selfish hypergamy. A cruel slut passing herself off as pure.

  260. Feminist Hater says:

    I wouldn’t have much issue with VR’s ‘ chaste boyfriend’ ideal if there was a specific time limit to it. No more than 2 to 3 months at most. More than that and it’s simply cruelty, never mind an actual consumption of the man’s resources whilst he gets very little in return.

    A woman doesn’t need more than a couple months to decide. If she needs longer the only reason is that she is playing the field and stringing the guy along just in case nothing better comes along.

  261. van Rooinek says:

    Well actually I was sold on the first date but it took 6 months to convince her. So I was the “chaste boyfriend” for 6 months… then fiance… After 10 years of marriage and 3 kids, I don’t think I’ve been played for a chump. The product performed as advertised, so to speak.

    When I hear of people “dating” for several years…. unless they are forciblly separated due to college or military deployment, I consider that utterly pointless. Even in those cases: if you’re sure enough to make a commitment that will last through a long deployment or gradschool…. you should be engaged, not just dating.

    If you can’t sort it out in a year something is wrong. 2-3 months may be too short though… it takes longer to vet a guy.

  262. Feminist Hater says:

    I don’t think 2 to 3 months is too short. By that time she should know most of what she needs to. Does he have a job? His family life and his outlook on life. A date or two every weekend, lunch with both families and then get on with things. If you date for a year and then get married, not much of a deal. However, if you date for a year and then she just ups and goes to find herself, you’ve wasted your money, your time, your energy and a bit more of your sanity. It’s just not worth it. 3 months tops, if she can’t decide by then that you’re it, move on and dump her arse.

  263. Opus says:

    I think I’ve got it, now:

    A Boyfriend does not raise a woman’s SMV but it does raise her Status, as a boyfriend can be passed off as a would-be Husband i.e. whereas you might have thought that she was undesirable as being too old or too fat or ugly, or even too sluttish to gain commitment, as you can now see has someone invested in her and investment means male resources going in her direction. One should not be fooled however: I knew one woman who returned from her foreign holiday proudly telling all and sundry of her new Boyfriend (her previous, a few years earlier, had not really been a Boyfriend at all as she had been his piece on the side as he was already engaged to another woman – much chagrin when he dropped her) but the new Boyfriend was (to use my own expression) a Boyfriend of Utility as she had bought him (that is to say he was a Gigolo named Marco with aspirations to a green card). Then she had the nerve to gain sympathy somewhat later by saying that of course it could never work etc etc – although she had already (secretly) moved on to others of the same ilk – renting, certainly, even leasing, but not buying.

  264. Phantasmagoria says:

    Huh. I’ll have to admit, I never thought of it that way. I didn’t think that a woman could gain status from dating a man, I actually thought it was a one way transaction whereby a man, upon gaining a girlfriend/wife is suddenly far more attractive to other women.

    Though, does it work in reverse? Does a woman having a man make other men want to steal her from him?

  265. greyghost says:

    “Though, does it work in reverse? Does a woman having a man make other men want to steal her from him?”
    No it is just to show other women she can get a man. Female status is between girls you are just a prop.

  266. P Ray says:

    @Opus:
    Yup.
    “as you can now see has someone invested in her and investment means male resources going in her direction.”

  267. Feminist Hater says:

    Yep, status is a value women appreciate. If a man invests in a woman, it shows status to other women, not men. Don’t get me wrong, men appreciate status in work colleagues and friends, just not in the mother of their children. Then it’s merely an after thought. As long as she’s intelligent, attractive, chaste and can care for home and children, that’s pretty much average for a man looking for a marriage minded woman. There are of course other requirements for different men, such as for me she has to be from the same ethnic background; but that’s neither here nor there and not important for most men.

  268. P Ray says:

    @greyghost
    Female status is between girls you are just a prop.
    Which is why women are able to change boyfriends so quickly.
    Reminds me of the beautiful line from “Closer”:
    “If you believe in love at first sight, you never stop looking”
    It’s up there with 500 Days of Summer as the most “horrifying” love story.

  269. alphamission says:

    Men dont really care how smart a woman is, as long as she is not smarter than him, or very unintelligent in comparison. Men value physical attractiveness, sexual availability, and virtuousness(not slutty, faithful, not naggy, not endless attempts to seize control via shit testing,etc). In other words “she’s hot, she wants to fuck, and she only wants to fuck me.” This is what a man wants in a woman.

  270. P Ray says:

    ^ From what I observe, that’s what a man gets when the woman knows he has other options.
    I am pretty sure humanity and civilisation owe a debt towards punishments and rewards.

  271. Feminist Hater says:

    When I say ‘intelligent’, I don’t mean a genius or a ball buster feminist. I mean a woman who can tell the difference between ‘right and wrong’, has her own moral accountability – one that doesn’t change as her mood shifts I might add; and can generally balance a budget. My father and mother were both highly intelligent and successful career wise, they both just put their family first. Married young, had children and my mother was home most of the time to raise myself and my other siblings. I would like to have an intelligent partner, who is attractive, young and chaste. I’m a clever chap and can hold my own, so I don’t really fear a girl with a brain. I’m merely just not interested in a feminist, in truth, they bore me half to death and always have bags and dark spots under their eyes as a result of their constant nagging and emotional hypocrisy.

    P Ray, the equation of human sacrifice and privilege is quite old. You punish bad behaviour to get rid of it. Shaming works too. You reward the behaviour you want more of and under NO CIRCUMSTANCE do you use shaming to acquire it. Shaming stops a person doing something, it cannot make a person do something they don’t want to do. Key point that modern society misses. You cannot shame men to ‘man up’, society has to provide incentive, i.e. a reward, for men to ‘man up’. Society has to reward its producers in order to create an incentive for them to sacrifice. It’s as old as Civilisation itself.

  272. P Ray says:

    @Feminist Hater
    Exactly why “man up” makes no sense.
    “It will be different for you guys, women are more educated! But if you don’t step up to take part in this lottery, you are all LOSERS/basement dwellers!”
    Those are horrible odds, 50% chance of failure, 50% of losing all you currently own, and a significant chunk of earnings in the future!(on somebody else’s say-so).

  273. Phantasmagoria says:

    Unfortunatly though, hardcore feminists are as capable of coming to a logical conclusion like that as a sieve is capable of holding water.

    I do find it funny though that there seems to be the common opinion of “I’m a strong, confident, mature grrrrrrl who is completely self sufficient and independant… but I still want a man to provide for my every wish,whim and thought. Oh, and he has to make me haaaaaaaaappy all the time.”

    I really don’t get how supposedly equality still means having a man to provide for you.

  274. She should be intelligent enough to understand how intelligent you are.

  275. Blessed are the Boyfriends; for they shall be Chaste: Matthew Ch V verse 49, which is inexplicably missing from the King James.
    ————————————————————————-
    This is in the pink letter Bible, the Personal Jesus (TM) words are in pink.

  276. Feminist Hater says:

    Empath, I believe that bible also comes with ribbons, a personal ‘self-improvement’ diary and a personal copy of Twilight, signed by their Jesus/Handyman/Millionaire/Hunk Edward Cullen.

    Lol, what woman needs standards when they’re all entitled to their personal Jesus immersed in the immortal vampbod of Mr Cullen?

  277. Its sold in the Lisa Frank section…..find it by looking for the sign:

    “HERE, THERE BE UNICORNS”

  278. Phantasmagoria says:

    Apologies if I cause offence with what I’m about to say, as it’s meant in good humour.

    So they have a personal Jesus. What’s next? Personal Jesus Quote Cards for every situation? Personal Jesus perfume (Eau de Christ)? Personal Jesus coffee mugs, Personal Jesus brand home stationary kits, Personal Jesus pre-recorded forgiveness in a can (up to 50 Hail Marys in each!)

    There could quite possibly be a lot of money in this.

  279. Hey hey hey, note my (TM), that stuff in MINE!

  280. I initially had some concerns about offense in my references to same, however, I’m not even remotely mentioning Jesus, our Jesus. The offense is in the creation of such a thing, even if its inadvertent. If you think about it, it explains a lot, its the missing variable in evangelical feminism and closes the loop.

  281. Dalrock says:

    @van Rooinek

    A “celibate boyfriend”, in that context, is (at best) an exploratory status until the marry/don’t marry decision is made, and (at worst), the victim of fraud — a woman is using him for entertainment, meals, emotional support yet KNOWS she will never marry him… but she doesn’t let HIM know that.

    This is it exactly. What I don’t understand is your assertion that the majority of the time in Churchianity it falls under the “at best” category. Modern Christians can’t find it in themselves to hold women accountable for crossing bright red lines in the Bible. Virginity at marriage, headship/submission, and divorce. Yet if I understand you correctly you are asserting that this case is different. It strikes me as similar to one claiming that in his county water runs uphill.

    It is especially unlikely that modern Christians get this one right because the operating assumption is that women naturally want to commit to marriage, that they are driven to do so (and that any foot dragging is axiomatically being done by the man). Only in the manosphere is women’s natural tendency regarding true commitment understood to be the other way around, and even here I’m not convinced it is fully processed. On top of that, they use the term “boyfriend” from the popular culture, not something specific. This is made all the worse because from the conversation here it is fairly evident that there isn’t an established set of rules which modern Christians “just know” are to be followed here. With this in mind, the assertion that Christian celibate boyfriends are mostly part of a good faith effort by the woman to move toward marriage, and not being used for entertainment, status, etc. requires some pretty astounding assumptions.

  282. alphamission says:

    Dalrock, that comment, and this article are complete gold. My church is definitely afflicted by feminized churchianity, so im glad you have spoken out against it, and empowered me to do the same.

  283. Dalrock says:

    @Feminist Hater

    I don’t think 2 to 3 months is too short. By that time she should know most of what she needs to. Does he have a job? His family life and his outlook on life. A date or two every weekend, lunch with both families and then get on with things. If you date for a year and then get married, not much of a deal. However, if you date for a year and then she just ups and goes to find herself, you’ve wasted your money, your time, your energy and a bit more of your sanity. It’s just not worth it. 3 months tops, if she can’t decide by then that you’re it, move on and dump her arse.

    This is a big decision, and we don’t want there to be any excuse for “I wasn’t reaaaaaaaady!” shortly after the last child is out of diapers. We also will hold her accountable for picking a man who she is very certain will still be around as the father of her children. Six months in that context seems very fair to me, perhaps a bit longer.

    I think what is missing is a general understanding by Christian men of the reality of what is going on, and the very large temptation for the woman to play him for a chump. Right now the men are nearly universally unaware of the true nature of what is going on and the fundamental risk. What I think a suitor needs to be considering is if she is 1) Truly looking to marry. and 2) Falling head over heels in love with him. #1 is a judgement call, but he should be able to make a very good guess if he is truly considering the question and not just assuming. How many previous “boyfriends” does she have? What do her actions say about her life’s priorities? #2 is something a man with game and experience should know within a month or two. If she isn’t entirely smitten by 2 months, and very much on the way there within a few weeks, this is when the man should be actively pushing the eject button in most cases. However, almost no Christian men understand the issue here and are able to identify the real deal from the fake. But if the man determines that 1 and 2 are both legit, 6 months give or take a month or two before he proposes seems very reasonable to me. If at that point she isn’t delighted that he finally proposed, even if she says yes he almost certainly should walk.

  284. Feminist Hater says:

    Well Empath, their acts are rather sinful because it is the basic sin of idolatry. They are worshiping the ideal of Jesus or God, as the perfect husband with the body of Edward Cullen, rather than honouring Jesus as their Saviour and worshiping God as their Creator. Their lack of worship in God and Jesus as our Creator and Saviour and the fear that accompanies this, they inadvertently invite evil into their lives.

    Jesus is not their boyfriend or husband, I imagine he cares far more about their soul than their sexual and marital aspirations. God provided man with women in order so that we could find companionship. And ‘Christian’ women are actively working against that to obtain this sort of companionship from Jesus Christ instead. I don’t think it’s wrong to poke a little bit at the fragility of their idolatry.

    I believe that the worship of false idols moved from Golden Calves to the new modern ideal of worshiping movie stars, pop stars and so on. The Churchian ideal of the personal Jesus is just another step. They don’t worship or honour Jesus as he was and for what he did for Humanity, they worship an entirely different form, which just happens to have the name ‘Jesus’ attached to it.

  285. Feminist Hater says:

    Dalrock, I can agree with that. 6 months sounds fair. But I will continue to stand by the idea that 3 months into a relationship, she’s either head over heals or she’s using him. I would imagine that 3 month mark to be more of ‘Question Time Phase’, where both parties should be asking themselves and each other the important questions and should have faith enough to be absolutely honest with each other about how they feel.

    If both are Christian and upfront with each other and have declared their love for each other, the desire for marriage should be set and the ideal of a proposal should be in the immediate future. There’s no two ways about this, either get busy finding that spouse or don’t bother.

    I get nauseated when I hear about the good, Christian man, who after a year of ‘courting’ a ‘Christian’ women, for whom he did everything for without expecting any sex, gets dumped and then a few months down the line that same women is dated some douche.

    My personal time limit is 3 months. If she doesn’t intend to let the relationship take its course, if she isn’t serious about marriage or avoids the subject of commitment like the plague, I’m no longer interested. I save at least some of my sanity that way.

  286. MackPUA says:

    For those who want Real Life examples of Dalrocks articles …

    Check out Divorce Court on Youtube …

    Pretty much all the topics, discussed on this site, you can witness them all in their gory detail, played out in real life …

    The best one’s where the woman claims hes too good to me, & everytime he says he loves me, it sounds as if he’s going to hit me … lol

    Black ghetto women & divorce court … pure comedy gold …

    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=Divorce%20Court

  287. What they worship is an entity that is ever affirming them, they worship some kind of Id I guess, the ego, the self, after all who better to support your decisions than, well, YOU? To take yourself and make it something outside and then call it Jesus is amazing. The creator of the universe as one who will listen to her side of the story and change his mind in her favor is a powerful advocate.

  288. Paul says:

    FH: “If both are Christian and upfront with each other and have declared their love for each other, the desire for marriage should be set and the ideal of a proposal should be in the
    immediate future.”

    That pretty much sums up how things went with my fiancee. Not only does it make sense, but it actually ‘feels’ right. I’m 40 now, divorced, as is she, and I constantly have the feeling that this is the way it was always supposed to be, what it should have been, and from talking to her she feels the same way.

  289. Feminist Hater says:

    Don’t worry Paul, your sarcasm isn’t lost on me.

    I subscribe to a set of rules of a traditional society. These set of rules cannot function in the modern society, hence my continual statement that marriage 2.0 is a no go. Don’t even try it.

  290. Feminist Hater says:

    Oh crap, lol. I need to clarify something here. Are you saying that that’s how it went with your finance and then you got divorced later and thus being sarcastic? Or are you saying you got divorced then found you now wife, who was also divorced, and then followed the above plan? In which case, that’s grand and I hope it works out.

    So for the misunderstanding.

  291. van Rooinek says:

    Good morning.

    feminist hater: I get nauseated when I hear about the good, Christian man, who after a year of ‘courting’ a ‘Christian’ woman.., gets dumped and then a few months down the line that same women is dating some douche. My personal time limit is 3 months. If she doesn’t intend to let the relationship take its course, if she isn’t serious about marriage or avoids the subject of commitment like the plague, I’m no longer interested

    Agree partially. There should be some real evidence of marriage interest fairly early, or the relationship isn’t worth continuing. If there’s no sign of that in the first 2-3 months, cut and run.

    However I would argue that a full, sensible evaluation should normally take a bit longer than that.

    me: A “celibate boyfriend”…. is (at best) an exploratory status until the marry/don’t marry decision is made, and (at worst), the victim of fraud — a woman is using him for entertainment, meals….
    Dalrock: This is it exactly. What I don’t understand is your assertion that the majority of the time in Churchianity it falls under the “at best” category.

    Well… at this point we’re just arguing percentages. I can only go by my experiences. Here and there a woman might have used me for a free meal or two but nobody ever strung me along, long term, like that. All of my Christian “girlfriends” — which I can count on one hand — were very clearly marriage oriented, and things ended when it became clear that marriage wasn’t going to happen.

    The case was similar for my friends…. as far as I can tell…. and most of them ended up getting married, a lot younger than me actually (I was the last domino to fall).

    However, I will concede that date-fraud be more common than I realize. Maybe I just hung out with an unusually righteous clique. And it’s hard to see into a woman’s wicked heart sometimes…

  292. van Rooinek says:

    ugh… typo….

    I will concede that date-fraud MAY be more common than I realize

  293. Feminist Hater says:

    ugh… typo….

    Really need an editing option on our posts.

  294. Firepower says:

    elspet

    Okay Firepower:

    However, you cannot say that Jesus didn’t preach chastity. What’s more the Church universal believes that the epistles of Paul are inspired and sacred

    meh. That’s not the
    Rousing Condemnation of Fornication
    I’d expect from the Son O’ God
    but it’ll have to do – including His worse reaction to divorcees. You aren’t btw, are you?

    So, if Pauline teaching is considered sacred, it’s easy to whack Xtians’ rush to support Paul’s views on sex, but then hypocritically – and FEMINISTICALLY – ignore Paul’s teachings on how women should be silent in church matters.

    All or noting. Inspired Word O’ God – or not. Can’t have it both ways. Even in a Feminist Society that cuts you girls ALL the slack.

  295. Paul says:

    FH, the second meaning, that I believe I’m getting it right the second time, as is she. At least that’s the plan.

    I had to go rather far afield to find her, but it’s worth it. I’ve found nothing at all in her league closer to home, period. It’s also amazing how gentle the wall can be to a non-carousel riding woman who puts a priority on her feminine appearance. Her face doesn’t look like she’s spent the last 20 years sucking lemons, if you know what I mean.

  296. Mac says:

    @van rooinek
    “Here and there a woman might have used me for a free meal or two ”

    In a (modern) girl’s mind, it’s only “date fraud” if the meal is explicitly a date. Since most guys never grab their testicles and make their intentions blatant, women can go on pretending like they “didn’t know it was a date.” A the hamster wheel spins on…

    For any of you reading this who are actually still in the dating scene, check it out: if the event can be misconstrued as “just friends”, it will be.

  297. van Rooinek says:

    Since most guys never grab their testicles and make their intentions blatant…

    And here,perhaps, is the core misunderstanding. I was always blatant about my intent.

  298. Mac says:

    The “celibate boyfriend” is simply another manifestation of the feminine imperative run rampant in the Church.

    In Christianland, women want relationships and love while men want sex. However, sex outside of marriage is sin. Couple start dating to see if they’re compatible for marriage. If they stay together long enough, they will eventually start messing around simple as a result of human nature. This is where it gets fun:

    Because women women “prize” relationships and men “prize” sex, any sexual escalation must therefore be the fault of the man. Otherwise, women would be more than happy to wait. If you want proof of this concept, check out Dalrock’s post where Mark Driscoll rants about men manning up.

    There’s no such thing as a truly celibate boyfriend. Nowadays every normal couple starts messing around. The idea of a “celibate boyfriend” is just a means of laying the blame at men’s feet.

  299. deti says:

    Mac, June 14, 2012 at 1:36 pm:

    Yes, this is part of it. But I think that what is really going on is that many Christians are either dishonest about BFs and GFs starting to get sexual; or they are just naive about it; or they are in deep denial about it.

  300. van Rooinek says:

    Because women women “prize” relationships and men “prize” sex, any sexual escalation must therefore be the fault of the man.

    I call BS. on this. I had several experiences where the “Christian” women were the escalators, and I was the one drawing, or trying to draw, a strict line. I was dumped by 2 when I plainly refused to have premarital sex. BTW one of the worst escalators was a virgin.. (or so she said).

    I never went all the way till the wedding, but I went farther than I should a few times — till I learned the hard way, on my own, to draw much stricter lines and avoid certain situations. The church could have helped prevent this by preparing us and warning us about such matters, but instead all they wanted to say, was “don’t date”…. ie, die single. Also, the church tend to assume all sexual escalation is the man’s fault — in defiance of the Scriptures, which clearly portray the wiles of seductresses. So men aren’t prepared to resist/avoid this situation when the woman initiates or escalates, they’re only told not to initiate it themselves.

  301. justsomesquare says:

    Sorry if you have seen this link before, but I just read it and thought it was interesting.

    “Modern conventional wisdom assumes dating is preparation for marriage. It is actually preparation for divorce. Breaking up is hard to do—the more you do it, the better you get at it.”

    http://boldchristianliving.com/articles/youthful-romance/the-dangers-of-dating-scriptural-romance—part-1.html

  302. deti says:

    Breaking up is hard to do—the more you do it, the better you get at it.”

    No. The more you do it, the worse you get at it, and the worse it gets to you, especially if you were sexual.

    Women bond to the alpha men they have sex with. Their ability to bond weakens with each successive partner. I don’t have science for it but I believe the more a woman bonds and breaks up, the more immune she becomes to bonding. I don’t know if it is hormonal or a defense mechanism. But something happens to high N women. After a certain point they simply become unable to bond, unable to form an emotional attachment to a man.

  303. chaz345 says:

    @ deti:
    “Women bond to the alpha men they have sex with. Their ability to bond weakens with each successive partner. I don’t have science for it but I believe the more a woman bonds and breaks up, the more immune she becomes to bonding. I don’t know if it is hormonal or a defense mechanism. But something happens to high N women. After a certain point they simply become unable to bond, unable to form an emotional attachment to a man.”

    You might not have the science for it, but said science definitely does exist. The amount of oxytocin(bonding hormone) released after sex with each sucessive sexual partner drops signifiantly. That’s why number of sexual partners is an indicator of likely divorce for women more than it is for men.

  304. TFH says:

    What happened to Windy and WC Taqqiya? Or did they not last 72 hours?

    Hence the value of never engaging a new troll until they have survived 72 hours…

  305. van Rooinek says:

    Modern conventional wisdom assumes dating is preparation for marriage. It is actually preparation for divorce.

    And NOT dating, is preparation for lifelong singleness. Duh.

    Breaking up is hard to do—the more you do it, the better you get at it

    No, the more you do it, the more it hurts. Each new disappointment is more poignant than the last.

  306. rockthrowingpeasant says:

    van Rooinek,
    I think his point was facetious.

  307. Elspeth says:

    You aren’t btw, are you?

    No Firewpower, I am not a divorcee.

  308. Anonymous Reader says:

    Firepower, 30 seconds reading Elspeth’s blog would answer your questions about her status.
    If that truth is what you really seek.

  309. Elspeth says:

    Clicking on my avatar directs you to TC, a joint blog I author with some other women.

    However, we are actually having an interesting conversation about marriage and responsibility on my personal blog right now:

    http://terrybreathinggrace.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/a-worthy-read/

  310. A Lady says:

    Mimi Alford was low-n and unable to bond well to her husband. It’s not about the count, it’s about how women approach their sexual desire and overall attitude for and towards men. It’s more a series of interlocking circles than a binary. A high count woman can bond well, and a low count woman can bond poorly, and vice versa. I mean, look at all the churchian virgins who can’t seem to bond at all, despite a physical count of 0 (though of course quite high emotional counts).

    Count is a very rough proxy for certain kinds of passionate immediate attachment that lead to eroded ability to bond well on the part of the woman, but it’s not as perfect a proxy as manospherians keep claiming because it’s mostly a symptom and not the cause of the failed bonding. A poor bonder woman is more likely to rack up a count precisely because she’s a poor bonder, while a good bonder is more likely to have a lower count because she bonds so well. But some poor bonders remain physically continent while racking up the old emotional count and some good bonders have moderate-high counts due to being borderlines or something else that undermines their starting point of high bonding ability.

  311. Firepower says:

    I have a blog too, elspseth.
    http://eradica.wordpress.com/
    Your welcome to check it out also, and discover my beliefs.

  312. Comment_Whatever says:

    This has been an interesting thread about real problems.

    However, I think Lolo Jones actually has a few specific problems that give her some major problems.

    1.She is in the top 10% of women SMV and MMV. Easily. Fame and athletic success isn’t GREATLY valued be men, but it HAS value. She is probably higher up, actually. This creates, for her, PROBLEMS.

    While I disagree that ANYONE is having much fun in the barren, dry, wasteland of the modern American “dating wars”, the top 10% of men SMV aren’t suffering to much. They may even imagine that “have it good”. It is totally reasonable for Lolo to want a top 10% guy. It is also totally reasonable that he may not particularly feel like Marriage 2.0.

    The modern SMV isn’t fun for high SMV women.

    2.Her father was a man who never married her mother and ended up leaving her mother. To the extent her ideal husband is modeled after her father…. well, there are PROBLEMS.

    in short, she probably is a Unicorn.

    THEY EXIST! THEY EXiST!

    NAWALT! NAWALT! NAWALT!

  313. FFY says:

    This is reality, not cynicism: If you date a Christian girl who wants you to be celibate for her, you are being played for a chump.

    The only virgins in my youth group (7 years ago now, geezeo) were the ugly chicks. The only virgins in my friends youth groups at other churches were the ugly chicks. And of course most of the dudes were virgins but that’s neither here nor there…

    My mind has been blown on more than one occasion when I find out Miss. Angelic or Miss. “Let’s all hold hands a pray while I sing us a really spiritual song” is getting railed by her bf now. There is too much temptation, too little judgment, and too much pressure from the herd.

    My ex- a pastor’s daughter, no less- perfectly phrased the meaning of the Church for women:

    “I need to go this week so I stop feeling bad about last weekend” Christianity is, to a lot of women these days, a salve for their conscience, their get out of jail free card. Do bad stuff all week and weekend, then recharge your “good Christian” batteries on Sunday.

  314. FFY says:

    To which I will also add, these chicks are also really dangerous because they truly believe “they are good people”. Yeah so what, they party, do drugs, take some cocka, but they’re Christians! They go to Church every Sunday! They do mission trips! They aren’t like those other girls!

    A modern Christian woman (NAWALT, of course) is possibly worse than a secular woman because she hides behind her “faith”, blocking out all introspection or willingness to correct her behavior because “God still loves me”.

  315. deti says:

    A Lady:

    By most accounts, Mimi Alford (then Marion Beardsley) was 19 and a White House intern when then president JFK seduced her in the White House. JFK took her virginity, or more accurately, she gave him her virginity.

    So I agree with this: if a woman’s first is alpha enough, she might render herself unable to bond for life. It just doesn’t get any more alpha than a sitting US president – the most powerful man on earth. And nothing would destroy a woman’s bonding ability than getting sexed by a sitting US president. Why should she, and how could she, “settle” for any other man after garnering the sexual attentions of the alpha-est of alphas?

    There isn’t a man alive who would knowingly wife up such a woman. She would always — ALWAYS — compare every subsequent man to her first superalpha.

  316. van Rooinek says:

    If you date a Christian girl who wants you to be celibate for her, you are being played for a chump.

    Being celibate until marriage, is something you do for the LORD, not “for her”.

    All TRUE Christian girls will expect this of you…. and will also follow it themselves. There’s nothing “chumpy” about obeying God together.

    But if you are celibate and she NOT, then yes, you are being played for a chump. But that’s not because you are doing anything wrong. but because SHE is.

    And she’ll go to hell for it.

  317. GKChesterton says:

    @TFH,
    That some foolish woman in her late 30s is still single and calls herself ‘traditional’ merely means she is using the label and the church to morally preen and deliver shaming language from a supposed position of authority.

    No. She could be unattractive. Given the larger statistical deviation in male qualities if she is unattractive she is likely drawing men that no one should suggest she marry. Some women, like some men, have a bad draw.

    Also, she could have placed herself out of competition by not knowing what traditional really means. That is, she could be a by-product of the status quo with no malicious intent.

    This is why Sunday Morning Nightclub is noble – it shields beta males from predatory church sluts.

    Not it is not. It is evil and should be destroyed. I’d happily put in stocks both the Alpha’s and the Sluts. Both corrupt.

    @Dalrock,
    My point is the vast majority of the time Christians use the term they are talking about a celibate version of the same thing non Christians are talking about. I would guess around 90% of the time. Yet all you want to talk about the 10%, the corner case. This is maddening. I’m addressing something real, don’t you agree?

    It seems he does but is validly pointing out that the word “boyfriend” covers both positions. It is a super-set. As a super-set you only confuse people if you use it as a sub-set. This leads to fewer recruits and miscommunication.

    @Jacquie
    I don’t know, does the fact that they eventually engaged and married make a difference?

    Yes. Statistics cited here even say so. Should they request forgiveness? Yes. One of the best reasons for the ancient liturgical traditions treating marriage as a sacrament is that it helps get the couple over this hump. Yes, you found each other attractive. Yes, you blew it. Fortunately the marriage is God’s means of washing you clean.

    @Elsbeth,
    I actually believe a large percentage of Christians who start down the dating path even though they’re not ready for marriage have every intention of remaining chaste. I honestly believe that. However, they overestimate their ability to withstand temptation and they fall precisely because they are sexually attracted to the person they’re dating

    In other words they are human.

  318. Anonymous Reader says:

    A Lady:
    To add to Deti’s point about women imprinting on alpha’s…it works for women who are not virgins, too. There is an easy, obvious example:

    Name the current boyfriend of Monica Lewinsky.

  319. Feminist Hater says:

    A Lady sounds like she’s advising one to marry a slut. No thanks, take that tripe elsewhere please.

  320. deti says:

    Anon Reader:

    Quite. Mimi Alford at least lived in a time when, if she wished, she probably could keep her liaison with JFK relatively quiet. She probably could prevent even her husbands from discovering it. Lewinsky was not so lucky: She lives in the 24 hour news cycle and gained instant notoriety. There isn’t a man alive in the Western world who hasn’t heard of Lewinsky. There isn’t a man alive who doesn’t know why she gained that notoriety.

    Women today can take a lesson from this. Some of these women post online about their activities. They take cell phone videos and photos of themselves in various compromising positions. They post online about men they date, sexual exploits, etc. Girlfriends and other friends who were witnesses to hijinks tend to remember said shenanigans and talk about them months and years later. Some women document literally every moment of their lives on social media. Once it goes online, it’s there forever. A savvy researcher can unearth various and sundry dirt and other unsavory facts about people quite easily.

    Be careful out there.

  321. Anonymous Reader:

    Feminism often resembles a 2-year old child screeching to any adult in earshot You’re not the boss of me!

    Funny you should mention it:

    “Feminism starts out being very simple. It starts out being the instinct of a little child who says ‘it’s not fair’ and ‘you’re not the boss of me’” – Gloria Steinam, Gloria: In Her Own Words

    Feminism as spoiled brat – seems apropos

  322. greyghost says:

    @TFH,
    That some foolish woman in her late 30s is still single and calls herself ‘traditional’ merely means she is using the label and the church to morally preen and deliver shaming language from a supposed position of authority.

    No. She could be unattractive

    You answred the question of what makes her unattractive (Given the larger statistical deviation in male qualities if she is unattractive she is likely drawing men that no one should suggest she marry)

    The chick is a herd follower so TFH has it right. Women will always have a reason to hide or blame away her role in a perceived negative light. You are damn right she will claim traditional woman when she’s hypergamy for herd status. God has already blessed her years ago with a man that has biblical qualities and had an actuall emotional crush on her. But she chose status in the feral herd and we’re talking church bitches too. I said before and I’ll say it over and over again red pill women have so much to offer society even in just one social group like a paticular church. Imagine a church of the red pill of Christ and some women had a truely beta male approached her. Her church buddies would be giving her the approval she needs and desires. The men would get that man on to some game and show him how to fluff that pussy (Tingle that gina sounds better for this crowd) I never liked the beating around the bush approach the church uses.

  323. Cane Caldo says:

    My mind has been blown on more than one occasion when I find out Miss. Angelic or Miss. “Let’s all hold hands a pray while I sing us a really spiritual song” is getting railed by her bf now.

    I could have wrote this; except it only happened once. That was enough for me to quit church for over a decade. Not the right reaction, but true.

  324. Anonymous Reader says:

    Infernal Optimist: can you be more specific in that quote? A page number?
    It’s terrific.

  325. Firepower says:

    Hey dalrock
    go f*** yourself

    [D: Hugs and kisses.]

  326. PC Geek says:

    Note that 1 Corinthians 7 is not actually speaking against marriage (or even painting it as the more Holy option) as some would have it – it was speaking about a very specific situation – a food shortage that had occurred in Corinth at that time. (see http://www.tektonics.org/uz/1cor7.html for details.)

    It is dangerous to make conclusions based on Biblical passages without some basic knowledge of the historical and cultural context that those passages were written – a classic fundamentalist mistake.

  327. Though consistent, the criticism of “the celibate boyfriend” presupposes a high value for sex. It’s an idea that’s inherent in most game theorists’s writing (If pussy is in such high supply, then why is it valued as if it’s a scarcity?)

    What does she have to offer besides her body? That should be the question. Taken in the converse, a woman who drains you mentally, controls you, and complains is not worth it if she offers you ’round the clock sex.

    I’m not sure what you’re referring to as unbiblical. Are you referring to sex before marriage, or chastity within a relationship?

    [D: Celibate romantic relationships.]

    Last [type]: Stop Caring What other people think about you

  328. The best way to get a girl to bond to you is to get to her when she is a virgin, and turn her into a woman, and a mother. At least act like an alpha. Nothing in life is certain,but that is my suggestion. Of course that might be a counsel of perfection.

    Alternatively, learn to live with sloppy seconds.

  329. O-Tony says:

    you know what i dont get? any man who wants a smart woman as a priority. who cares if you cant get mentally stimulated by your woman (as often or as deeply as you like) that is what male companions are for. King David was not homosexual but he even said that Jonathan’s love was greater than that of a woman.

    My point being, womens tendency to isolate men so that they dont have friends is so that they have more leverage. You should be getting your mental stimulation from your male friends. Women who try to pass off intelligence over anything feminine quality (beauty, nurturing, ie, non-masculine traits/characteristics/personality)

  330. O-Tony says:

    Women who try to pass off intelligence over anything feminine quality (beauty, nurturing, ie, non-masculine traits/characteristics/personality)is just a loss and foolish

  331. O-Tony, my wife has what we call an Arts degree here, in subjects like mediaeval studies and religious studies. She is not a stupid woman, and we have had some good discussions at times, but she is not really intellectual. When 2Blowhards were blogging, they said something like, a man who marries a woman for intellectual companionship will likely be disappointed, because most women are interested, most of the time, in personal relationships, not in abstract questions.

    I think they will chat quite happily in coffee houses when students about the larger issues. But a surprising number will leave most of that behind when they enter into domesticity.

  332. O-Tony says:

    David
    my second post right after was because i left it off on the one before. Intelligence (abstract) is more in the realm of the masculine ( not necessarily to say women are not). what i am trying to say is that women shoulnd lead off on masculine traits. the most stimulating conversations i have is with other men, so i know i can get this “need” fullfilled by my friends.

    My point, men, dont value intelligence in a woman more than her physical and internal beauty (personality).

  333. O-Tony, I don’t disagree. If most men are like I was, they will look for a girl who is a physical type they find appealing; not a slut (some men prefer actual virgins); kind and feminine; not stupid; and no more devious than the average female. I avoided women who were older than me; better educated than me; seemed to be strongly career-minded; seemed not to be sure if they were women; and so on. Even then, some would identify as feminists – a complete turnoff. I would not have married a girl on a large salary or who had a lot of money; in my day, at least, there was shame in being “kept” by a woman.

  334. Kaehu says:

    “‘My mind has been blown on more than one occasion when I find out Miss. Angelic or Miss. “Let’s all hold hands a pray while I sing us a really spiritual song” is getting railed by her bf now.’

    ‘I could have wrote this; except it only happened once. That was enough for me to quit church for over a decade. Not the right reaction, but true.’”

    This is true for me also. Except in my case I was the bf of the Super Sweet Church Girl. And I was stupid enough to believe it was ok because she was The One, and I was The One for her, and I was hopelessly in love with her and we were eventually going to get married and live happily ever after. First woman I ever even kissed.

    And then after a few months she dumped me, and told me, in such a sweet way that I felt everything was somehow my fault, that it just wasn’t working out and that she knew that could happen so she had avoided getting “emotionally attached” to me (in other words, I was an affair for her). It was her view, though, that somehow she was being noble by ending the relationship and “setting me free” to find someone else. And then it came out that I was not the first person in our college youth group she had done this to. And then, the thing that ripped me apart the worst (when I said how could she just do that, that I had been totally committed to her and was prepared to marry her if we slipped up and she had gotten pregnant) was she told me that she would have had an abortion and not told me.

    That experience messed me up pretty well for the rest of my single life, and took my trust level in women to below zero. Am I still bitter about it, 35 years later? Yes.

  335. alphamission says:

    I dont blame you man, that is so fucked up. You gave your heart to her, and she would have coldly and calculatingly killed your child. How can any hamster, however fast, justify such behaviour and thought?!

  336. sunshinemary says:

    Per the importance of a woman’s intelligence to her prospective husband…
    I just turned to my husband and asked him if intelligence was important to him in deciding whether or not to marry me. He said yes, but only after being drawn in by sexual attraction. He said his opinion at that time was stupid girls were good for b***jobs,but not for marriage. So intelligence IS important to some guys IF we can trust my husband’s words. I for one am not sure we can trust him on this, since he and I are about to go to bed for the night and, well….would you admit to your wife whom you were about to crawl into bed with that you really couldn’t care less if she was smart or not? So the jury’s out on the intelligence thing.

    - Sunshine

    (Dalrock, I have this same comment sitting in moderation because I accidentally used the wrong email address…please delete, thanks!)

  337. Yes, I would tell my wife if I didn’t care if she was intelligent or not, before going to bed or any other time. In fact, I tease her a lot about that kind of thing (and she, me). But of course intelligence matters in a woman. Quite a lot. Practical, applied intelligence particularly.

    On the deceptive ways of sweet young things, I once had a slight crush on a girl at University. She was cute and seemed very nice. Another young woman eventually told me that she was actually very promiscuous. I believed her, and I suppose I swallowed a bit more of the red pill. I also ended up hiding the second girl’s panties in my college room desk while her husband was knocking on the door, and I got even more red pill from that experience.

  338. van Rooinek says:

    she dumped me, and told me, in such a sweet way that I felt everything was somehow my fault, that it just wasn’t working out ….. somehow she was being noble by ending the relationship and “setting me free” to find someone else.

    Did she at any point during this brushoff, begin any of her sentences with, “God told me….”??

  339. @ Van Rooinek – “A “celibate boyfriend”, in that context, is (at best) an exploratory status until the marry/don’t marry decision is made, and (at worst), the victim of fraud — a woman is using him for entertainment, meals, emotional support yet KNOWS she ”

    Point taken and what I suggesting is to “even the playing field” by putting Christ first. Disciples of Jesus put Him first and foremost either male or female.

    Examine the fruit of her daily discipleship walk with Jesus. If he/she has a actual relationship with Jesus he/she will be “a exception” to en masse of what poses for puke-warm Christianity
    Why should a “celibate” Christian man who is a disciple pay for entertainment, meals, emotional support and mostly spiritual support to court a Christian/Disciple “celibate” woman ?
    He doesn’t and is nor expected too !!! A real disciple who is picking up his cross, denying themself, and following Jesus is in the process of discipleship and is a saint, called out, elect, holy one.
    A disciple is celibate and is a real deal Christian. Not all professing “Christians” are disciple nor celibate which is should will be seen if one doesn’t fall for a glandular urge.
    It is months and even years to see if the other person is a real disciple of Jesus. One has to be careful, sober, and look for fruit.
    Anyone woman who expects a Christian man to be a real disciple of Jesus and foot the bill is not a real Christian, disciple, nor celibate though she is professing. She denies it in her action.
    Allow me to suggest, there are plenty of millions of professing “Christians” and tiny number of actual disciples ( ie all Disciples are Christians but not all Christians are Disciples).
    Being a real disciple of Jesus and spiritually compatible is a prerequisite and can only be seen in behavior over time.

  340. van Rooinek says:

    Examine the fruit of her daily discipleship walk with Jesus. If …she has a actual relationship with Jesus …she will be “a exception” to en masse of what poses for puke-warm Christianity

    I did. She is. We’ve been married for 10 years now.

    But I can’t see anything wrong with the fact that I paid for the dinners while we were dating. It’s not a biblical command, it’s just a cultural rule. But the cultural rule violates no command, and women of our culture by and large expect that a man will pay for the dates. If it’s no sin, might as well go along with the culture. To do otherwise, invites needless hardship in a realm that’s already far too hard nowadays.

  341. We Catholics have an expression, avoiding the occasion of sin. It means, not putting yourself in an environment where you are under moral pressure. There is a saying, “the standing penis has no conscience”. Neither does the moist vagina.

    Putting young people into long engagements is inherently dangerous, an occasion of sin. So is putting a girl within the reaches of an “alpha” male.

    A lot of the overall problem is structural. Modern social mores are conducive to foolish moral choices.

  342. van Rooinek says:

    A disciple is celibate and is a real deal Christian.

    Not necessarily Scripture refers to Peter and the other disciples having wives. Paul was apparently unique in his celibacy. Jesus plainly told the disciples, “Not all men can accept [celibacy], but only those to whom it is given.” If God didn’t give you that gift, then no matter how holy or sold-out to the Lord you may be, you ought to seriously consider marriage.

  343. Phoenix says:

    LOL if a girl puts me into celibacy for a relationship, she’s taking me out on dates. While I find another who’s going to put out.

    Oh wait, men can’t do this? Then why do women?

  344. @ Van Rooinek
    You are correct-Marriage is God ordained and the marriage bed is undefiled.
    I am referring to casual churchgoers who are under the delusional impression that they can engage in emotional, spiritual, sexual fornication and seriously believe they are “Christians” and will enter the Kingdom of God.
    Not a good idea to deceive a person under the guise of Christianity (remember better a milestone in Matt 18:6).
    Congrats on finding person of character – you are a blessed brother.
    Allow me to suggest dating/courting has changed significantly (digressed) over the decade. This is seen in the increase in single women (declining rate of marriage) and increase is out of wedlock children. Though this is secular – the same holds true for evangelical circles.

  345. P Ray says:

    @GKChesterton
    Not it is not. It is evil and should be destroyed. I’d happily put in stocks both the Alpha’s and the Sluts. Both corrupt.
    By that account, a person who sells locks to a storekeeper should be jailed.
    They are making it difficult for a burglar to steal.

    The thing people HATE regarding talking about lesser evils … is that they got no brain to talk about what is a good in the same situation.
    If the players aren’t occupying the non-marriage worthy girls (… since the marriage worthy girls are only after the men looking for marriage OR the decent men — I am open to the idea of marriage to a virgin woman myself IF there’s a mutual attraction)

    would you rather say the better situation is for the non-marriage worthy girls, to be with the non-player men?
    That’s a very repellent opinion indeed.

    Also try to remember, that a player may merely be dealing with the kind of women who want that kind of relationship. So the idea of “silver-tongued swindler” falls flat.

    MRA/MGTOW and PUA are perfectly reconciled once it is understood that women choose the men they want to be with.
    The PUA will only succeed with women who want to be with him.
    The MRA/MGTOW will only succeed with women who want to be with him.
    Speaking only for myself … I refuse to stop PUAs. They are dealing with women who want them, and women are certainly capable of making decisions of who they want to be with.
    Besides, who’s to say the PUA won’t fall in love?
    And is it right for a woman to consciously slut around (can anyone unconsciously slut around?) then demand a virgin man at the end of it?
    Think about the bad example you are setting for the nice girls, they have lost a nice guy to a slut.
    Is that right?
    The consequences of women’s actions, women alone are also responsible enough to bear.

  346. P Ray says:

    @Kaehu:
    the thing that ripped me apart the worst (when I said how could she just do that, that I had been totally committed to her and was prepared to marry her if we slipped up and she had gotten pregnant) was she told me that she would have had an abortion and not told me.

    With their choices, the effects women have on men when they treat them badly … create the kind of men they crave (and complain about).

    I’ve observed that the best players were nice guys who were burned by the women they held as dear as life itself.

    It’s definitely a move I am contemplating more seriously. When life hands you lemons, you make lemonade … along the way you also develop stronger hand muscles and learn the value of adapting to circumstances.

    Which to my mind, is a change some people would not like to see happen.

  347. imnobody says:

    @GKChesterton
    Not it is not. It is evil and should be destroyed. I’d happily put in stocks both the Alpha’s and the Sluts. Both corrupt.

    OK. Got it. Alphas (players) being corrupt is accepted by every Church in the world and is present in a lot of speeches by priests or pastors.

    So I guess you are fighting for slut shaming in your church so both kinds of behaviors are equally shamed in the church. You have talked to your priest and you have energetically demand that sluts shaming and player shaming are in the shame proportion. You have asked him to shame divorced women, single moms, young women with a boyfriend (which everybody knows they’re fornicating), etc. You have started a crusade inside your church to shame sluts as much as players. Haven’t you?

    No, you haven’t done that. You have the entire culture where sluts are celebrated and players are shamed. Here it is the opposite (and I agree that this is not the best). You could have started working anywhere starting to shame sluts. But you come here in this tiny obscure blog to shame players. This shows your bias. So please don’t lecture us about sluts and players being equally corrupt. Go to your church and start the job.

  348. @Opus
    “So, if I am right, what is the advantage to a woman in having a celibate boyfriend?”

    It’s not for social status, like a man gets by being seen with (and assumed to be sleeping with) an attractive woman. Instead, she gets a lot of what a woman wants from a man: emotional support, a shoulder to cry on, someone to kill spiders, maybe even a certain amount of financial support. Much of what a husband would provide, in other words, or at least the things a woman needs most from a husband. And in return, he gets…..what, exactly? He only gets social status if other women assume they’re sleeping together, which they probably won’t, because she’ll give off “we’re just friends” vibes that other women will pick up on (if she doesn’t say it outright). He doesn’t get sex, children, or any of the things a man needs most from a wife. Mostly, he gets a hard lesson in reality, if he’s aware enough to learn it.

    van Rooinek makes a good point: even in a traditional courtship setting, there will still be heartbreak. But it shouldn’t happen as often or be as bad. You could get pretty stuck on a girl while sitting in her family’s parlor playing canasta with her parents, but not to the same degree that you can while necking in the back seat at the drive-in. Even if there’s no sex involved, the intimate conversations and alone-time that occur in a boyfriend/girlfriend dating relationship can produce a much deeper bond than supervised courting.

    Kimberly Hahn did a good talk on courtship, in which she said that the suitor (and I think that’s the perfect word, because it makes it clear that marriage is the end goal) should call the woman’s father and ask permission to court her. In cases where there isn’t a decent father to ask, that may not be an option, but the point is that he’s making his intentions clear, even if he can only ask the woman herself. He’s not saying, “I want to marry you”; but he’s not saying, “I just want to fool around for a while,” either. He’s saying, “I think I’m called to be married. If you are too, I’d like to spend time with you in various settings — family, friends, church, work, play, etc. — so we can see how we get along and whether we could have a future together.”

    Father Chad Ripperger, on the subject of courtship, makes the point that if you’re not ready to have children, you’re not ready for marriage, and if you’re not ready for marriage, you’re not ready to court (or date). That puts the emphasis on the right target, which is exactly backwards from the way most people do it. Most people start dating because they’re attracted to the opposite sex, then when the attraction to a particular person happens to become very strong, they start thinking about marriage, and then once they get married, they start thinking about children. That’s one reason it seems reasonable for them to stretch the dating/engagement process out for years — they don’t go into it prepared, so all their preparation has to happen *after* they’ve been dating someone long enough to want to make a commitment.

    If you do it the traditional way, you’ve already covered a lot of the serious topics before the first date. You already know your date has chosen marriage (and children, if Catholic) and considers you at least a possible prospect. There is a lot less to discover, so things can move much more quickly.

  349. My point being, womens tendency to isolate men so that they dont have friends is so that they have more leverage.
    —————————————————————–
    @ O Tony
    Good point, this like most things that seem scheming is really instinct, I do not frequently pass out kudos for being clever and calculating wives, that happens when the angst reaches peak, in daily course its just instinct

  350. Paul says:

    FFY:

    ” “I need to go this week so I stop feeling bad about last weekend” Christianity is, to a lot of women these days, a salve for their conscience, their get out of jail free card. Do bad stuff all week and weekend, then recharge your “good Christian” batteries on Sunday.”

    I spent a lot of time in SE Asia working a while back, and what you describe appears to me to be very similar to the way Bhuddism is actually practised by folks down there. It’s very reflective of the animistic roots, whereby it’s all about form and not substance, you go down to the shrine, buy the appropriate paraphernalia for the occasion (incense stick, flower, etc.) do a little ritual, and presto-changeo you all squared away cosmically speaking. The women of the night were the most frequent visitors to the Bhuddist temples.

  351. Paul says:

    I found this interesting, I found this article and the in the comments you basically have a number of women admitting and describing their rationalization hamster in action and how hard it is to fight it.

    http://www.guyspeak.com/blog/relationships/women-plain-dont-trust-their-own-instincts/

  352. Opus says:

    @My Lord Mhoram

    I, certainly, can see that a woman may use a man for emotional support and as an emotional tampon, and they clearly occasionally do – it happened to me once but I (happily) closed it down reasonably quickly, but here is the problem: If they want emotional support, then surely the simple thing is to confide in one of their enormous circle of girlfriends; for two women only have to meet once to become closest friends who will talk in intimate detail to each other about each other’s love lives incessantly. Then again they have mothers who they seem to need to phone at least three times a day!

    What then is it that a man can bring to a woman that she cannot get from another woman; for as we know, women are strong and independent and need a bicycle as much as does a fish. Is the explanation simply Power (seeing that it is not Sex): Power over a man; a form of cuckolding perhaps?

    I remain Your Excellency’s Most Humble Servant

  353. Paladin says:

    Dalrock, you are going to be delighted by YET ANOTHER bullshit movie about the husband who has to, for the XYZth time, win his wife’s love again. I gagged when a girl I know posted this on FB as “the most romantic film she’s ever seen”.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vow_(2012_film)

    [D: Brutal. More endless courtship fantasy.]

  354. Dalrock says:

    Opus,

    I’m not sure how tongue in cheek your last comment was but there is a reason both men and women generally prefer to be friends with men. The myth of the sisterhood is just that, a myth. However, it does get better for women after 50.

  355. van Rooinek says:

    van Rooinek makes a good point: even in a traditional courtship setting, there will still be heartbreak. But it shouldn’t happen as often or be as bad. You could get pretty stuck on a girl while sitting in her family’s parlor playing canasta with her parents, but not to the same degree that you can while necking in the back seat at the drive-in. Even if there’s no sex involved, the intimate conversations and alone-time that occur in a boyfriend/girlfriend dating relationship can produce a much deeper bond than supervised courting.

    Disagree totally. Some of my worst heartbreaks were with women that I never laid a hand on, never kissed, and had minimal alone time with. If the woman’s personality clicks with yours, and her body isn’t repulsive, you WILL fall DEEPLY in love no matter what the setting, and the breakup WILL be agonizingly painful. Even if you never kiss.

    Supervised courtship (for the very small percentage of the population that’s actually in a position to practice it) does have the advantage of making sexual sin virtually impossible. And parental involvement (for the small percentage of the population whose parents are alive, Christian, available, and willing to be involved) may help screen out some bad candidates. When things started to look serious with my future wife, I made a point of getting to know her Dad and making myself accountable to him, and if that’s at all possible, I would recommend that to everyone. But I’m certain that this widely popularized idea that courtship prevents, or even mitigates, heartbreak, is DISHONEST MARKETING. It sets off my BS detector very, very loudly.

    …he’s making his intentions clear….He’s not saying, “I want to marry you”; but he’s not saying, “I just want to fool around for a while,” either. He’s saying, “I think I’m called to be married. If you are too, I’d like to spend time with you in various settings — family, friends, church, work, play, etc. — so we can see how we get along and whether we could have a future together.”

    That SHOULD be a GIVEN in ALL Christian dating, since seek a spouse is the only righteous reason to date. But, unfortunately, you are right — it needs to be spelled out nowadays, since there is date-fraud in the church. (Date-fraud: exploiting a suitor for free dinners, attention, entertainment, emotional comfort, even though you’ve already decided you’ll never marry him.)

    Father Chad Ripperger, on the subject of courtship, makes the point that if you’re not ready to have children, you’re not ready for marriage, and if you’re not ready for marriage, you’re not ready to court (or date).

    This unfortunately plays into the forniculture’s dogma, that you have to be educationally and economically “established” before you can settle down. In practical effect, this teaching says, to most people, “you can’t get married til your 30′s”. Let us be realistic here: that long, long, long wait is a MAJOR “occasion of sin” for many people. Few are willing, and even fewer are strong enough, to hold out that long. As Robert S. McCain once quipped, “They’re not going to wait until they are old and ugly, to have sex.”

    Somehow, some way, we MUST get rid of this “establish yourself first” madness, and return to the oldfashioned pattern where two young lovers would marry with nothing, start a family on a shoestring, and build a life and wealth together. Otherwise, we will continue losing a large percentage of our youth to the forniculture, in many cases irretrievably, and those who do hold out (like me) will be forced by the choices of others to wait much, much longer for marriage than they should have to.

  356. TheMan says:

    This is probably the first time I’m saying this….

    I actually don’t get the idea here. Is the OP trying to say that boyfriends should not be celibate?

  357. Opus says:

    @Dalrock

    I have read both your links (both written by women), and my mind began to glaze over with both (which is not a good sign). I assume, you will agree with me that women do indeed seem to have endless female friends. I would accept that those friendships can be very brittle. Men by comparison have comparatively few friends but friendships between men seem to last over decades. That however does not answer my questions as to why, if women have so many female friends, they need to use men as surrogate women. If you are implying that women prefer to be friends with men rather than women, then I am at a loss to understand why women have so many female friends and so few male friends and why they seem to treat such male friends they may have men so badly. I subscribe to the view that men and women cannot be friends because sex will always get in the way; and thus any male/female friendship is on even less firm ground than all female friendships.

    (As you are not a member of the Aristocracy you will forgive me for addressing you somewhat less formally).

  358. van Rooinek says:

    and those who do hold out (like me) will be forced by the choices of others to wait much, much longer for marriage than they should have to.

    …and that’s the reason why I hate the “courtship movement” so much: Even though I agree with most of their principles, my real-life encounter with the movement had the effect (as far as I can tell) of delaying marriage and making it much, much harder to attain.

    For me, the courtship movement was an irksome hindrance that had to be overcome, it was not helpful at all — and he church should be helping people get married, not making it harder!!!!!!!!

  359. Anonymous Reader says:

    GKChesterton:
    I’d happily put in stocks both the Alpha’s and the Sluts. Both corrupt.

    Very easy words to say. I wonder if you would follow through with action? Remember the account I gave of a conservative church that was supporting a babymomma? The unmarried woman who had given birth to a bastard more than once as a member of that church, singing and praying and taking communion with all the rest? Imagine that is your church. It is the only one of your denomination in town, too. You can see she has not followed Bible rules, and after promising to “go and sin no more”, has in fact clearly “sinned more”.

    Her children are in the Sunday school. In fact, her children are in some kind of church school, with church support. Imagine you are yourself, with a wife and children, in that church. Tell me, when you go to the preacher or priest, what do you say? How do you and your wife shame this obvious slut?

    After you answer this question, the bonus round follows: your pastor’s 19 year old daughter who lives with her parents and isn’t married gets pregnant. Can’t wait to read how you would shame that slut, and still be able to go to that church.

  360. Opus says:

    @van Rooinek

    Much as I would like to agree with Father Ripperberger it rather reminds me of the Eleventh Commandment which (according to My Lord Byron) reads: Thou shalt not marry, unless well (His attack on the Rev Malthus).

  361. van Rooinek says:

    there is date-fraud in the church. (Date-fraud: exploiting a suitor for free dinners, attention, entertainment, emotional comfort, even though you’ve already decided you’ll never marry him.)

    And seen in this light, “friendzoning” a guy — the old “Let’s Just Be Friends” speech — is a commendable act of honesty. The woman is saying, clearly, that romance and marriage are not options for him. If the guy still wishes to associate with her, after being LJBF’d, that’s his choice. A foolish choice in most cases — unless the woman has something of real value to offer through friendship. But at least he knows the truth. And if he still wants to pay for dinner, at least it’s not under false pretenses.

    That said, lots of good guys get LJBFd while the girls date badboys. And lots of good guys, having been LJBFd, continue “as friends” in hopes of changing the girl’s mind (which virtually never works.) The manosphere is trying to fix both of these problems, and as a result, tends to see getting “LJBF’d” by a woman as a terrible thing. But…. at least she is being honest about her lack of desire.

  362. Anonymous Reader says:

    van Rooinek, I have a minor quibble regarding LJBF. There isn’t just one flavor. There’s at least two versions, probably more but two for sure.

    An honest, “Look, we can only be friends” brings clarity to the situation. If, as you say, a man continues to moon after the woman, it’s on his head, she told him where he stands. He may well be doing a foolish thing, but he’s doing it on his own. Eventually a normal man will wipe the stars out of his eyes and get on with life.

    There’s another version. That’s the “LBJF…”, where the ellipses are the trailing fingers down the arm, the deep smile across the room, the eye contact in social settings. The unspoken words are “…for now”. The unspoken implication is that friendzone status might somehow, in some way, at some future time, change. This is how a system of beta orbiters is constructed. Some women do this on purpose. And some do it without intent – the serial monogamist nature of women surely leads some to want to keep a “spare man” in the vicinity, but not too close, just in case. Maybe a woman is attracted to more than one man, honestly, and wants to keep them all around while she sorts out her own emotions. IMO this is the Friendzone that is referred to in manosphere parlance; the woman who wants to push a man away, but not too far away, to keep him orbiting for some use or other, once in a while – killing spider, changing a furnace filter or the oil in her car, going to a movie with her when she’s between other boyfriends, etc. and so forth.

    So to be a bit more fine grained, a simple “LJBF” brings clarity, but the more common “LJBF…” just muddies the situation even more. Men should not accept this ambiguity, unless they are players who are prepared to exploit it. Since those men are not the subject of the OP, we don’t need to discuss them.

    The lesson here is simple: a serious, marriage minded man should take both “LJBF” and “LJBF…” as a done deal, as the first case. If she chooses to try to pursue him without pursuing, by lightly flirting with him in social situations for whatever reason, he should first remind himself of the LJBF, and then remind her too: “We are just friends, and nothing more”. No question mark at the end of that statement, but a period, full stop. Because the second option just leads to endless frustration and emotional pain for the man in question.

  363. van Rooinek says:

    No disagreements there, Anonymous Reader. I would add, however, that a man who has been LJBFd honestly, may misinterpret smiles, friendly touches, etc due to his own wishful thinking. Even if she isn’t being intentionally deceptive.

    In any case, you’re right: No man should invest, emotionally or otherwise, in a woman after an LJBF, honest or not. Except in the rare case where there is something of real value in the friendship, and he can honestly put aside his own nonreciprocated attraction for her. And frankly that was never the case with anyone that LJBFd me — if they weren’t going to marry me, they didn’t have anything else to offer that my male friends couldn’t provide. And my male friends were superior in one respect: they didn’t call me up to say, “Hey, you have a pickup truck, I’m moving next Saturday… ” — they were strong enough to move their own damned furniture.

  364. The only way to have a successful marriage is start off as acquaintances and if they are worthy – then friends. This is not a simple display of “higher value” – it is a “de facto” position of higher value.
    Men are a increasing asset women are a decreasing asset.
    Disciplined real men (few are far apart) keep their word and are a “gold mine”.
    Therefore one should be very careful how they spend their attention, energy, and resources ( this is a mans power and they give it away too freely and QUICKLY).

    Fyi, I choose to keep women at a arms distance till she proves she is worth knowing.

  365. deti says:

    Michael Singer:

    Agree with all except this:

    “The only way to have a successful marriage is start off as acquaintances and if they are worthy – then friends.”

    If you are “friends”, she probably will not fall head over heels in love with you. The attraction — sexual, romantic attraction — has to be there at the outset. From my experience, every girl I’ve been involved with had sexual attraction for me, and it was palpable from the get-go. That attraction is either there, or it is not.

    Most things are not black-and-white. This is.

  366. van Rooinek says:

    The only way to have a successful marriage is start off as acquaintances and if they are worthy – then friends.

    That approach never worked for me, and only rarely works for others. Generally, once a friend, always just a friend.

    If sparks don’t fly right away, chances are very good that they never will.

  367. van Rooinek says:

    … but churches endlessly promote the “friends first” path… and wonder why there are so few weddings..

  368. Dalrock says:

    @TheMan

    I actually don’t get the idea here. Is the OP trying to say that boyfriends should not be celibate?

    The other way around. I’m saying the celibate shouldn’t be boyfriends (or girlfriends).

  369. van Rooinek says:

    I actually don’t get the idea here. Is the OP trying to say that boyfriends should not be celibate?

    The other way around. I’m saying the celibate shouldn’t be boyfriends (or girlfriends).

    Just in case there’s anyone else here, who remembers the older meaning of these terms — Dalrock means the present day secular meaning of “boyfriend”/”girlfriend”

    In generations past, and in some circles even now, the term “boyfriend” is applied to a righteous suitor. Call that “Boyfriend 1.0″, originally released as “Suitor”. Boyfriend 1.0 is a platform that easily supports, and is intended to support, an upgrade to Marriage 1.0. That’s NOT the kind of “boyfriend” that Dalrock means.

    Boyfriend 2.0 is a modern go-nowhere relationship, that rarely or never ends up in marriage and isn’t really intended to. Whether or not it involves sex, it’s a total waste of time. Turning off the default sex subroutine from the “Boyfriend 2.0″ relationship — hence the “celibate boyfriend” — doesn’t magically “Christianize” it because the whole paradigm is wrong.

  370. van Rooinek says:

    … and Marriage 2.0 is not an upgrade, it’s a virus.

  371. O-Tony says:

    V R
    “if they weren’t going to marry me, they didn’t have anything else to offer that my male friends couldn’t provide.”

    YES! This was part of what i was trying to say in my post on intelligence and male friendship. I want to drill this in until women realize that they are “obsolete” because they keep trying to be men. Its sad that its come to the point were BF 2.0 and Marriage 2.0, the only thing a woman has to offer is sex.

  372. O-Tony says:

    I think this is another reason why women instinctively (and depending on how self aware she is, scheming) isolate men when the have them

  373. O-Tony says:

    This makes me think about something. Do you think men or women view relationships as a zero sum game? I am inclined to think that women have this view (relative to men), rather they realize it or not

  374. van Rooinek says:

    V R — if they weren’t going to marry me, they didn’t have anything else to offer that my male friends couldn’t provide.”

    O-Tony — YES! This was part of what i was trying to say in my post on intelligence and male friendship. …Its sad that its come to the point …., the only thing a woman has to offer is sex.

    Careful, that’s not what I meant. Women can have a LOT else to offer — they can be fascinating companions, spiritual partners, intellectual challenges, and a great many other cool things. My wife certainly is. BUT… you can get all that from your male friends, too — those aren’t unique to women. I didn’t mean that women can *only* offer marriage/sex/kids, I meant that they *uniquely* offer marriage/sex/kids.

    And if you’ve already got more friends that you can keep up with, you don’t need *one more “friend”. Hence, if you are friendzoned by a girl, in most cases it’s best to just drift away, and not even maintain the friendship. (I wish someone had told me that 30 years ago.)

  375. O-Tony says:

    van Rooinek

    I agree and see how what I said can be taken that way, hence the “women isolating men” was there. What i mean by that is that i get a sense that women over value themselves and culturally, its sort of “normal” to see men isolated. I say this for the benefit of men so that they dont get stuck in a “the one” mentality and show that men are the ones who have the “natural” advantage but society has done a good job of a lot of men seeing this.

  376. O-Tony says:

    NOT seeing this

  377. O-Tony says:

    But also, van Rooinek, what you wrote above is harder to find in bf 2.0 and marriage 2.0. That is the context that I intended what i said that women are only good for sex. They are good for what you mentioned, but i dont think those will manifest very well how relationships have evolved to.

  378. van Rooinek says:

    For a Christian, sex outside marriage is forbidden. In that case, “only good for sex”, means, “good for nothing whatsoever”.

    If she’s not good enough to be a wife/mother, her sexuality is of no value to a Christian man.

  379. O-Tony says:

    van Rooinek,

    Just so you know, i am 28 male, virgin, and Christian (though i do have my own personal struggles as to truly putting Christ first). Just for context.

  380. O-Tony says:

    van Rooinek,

    Absolutely agree with what you said. Part of my frustration is that your generation, the pool of women was larger.

  381. van Rooinek says:

    Part of my frustration is that your generation, the pool of women was larger.

    ….. but equally hypergamist and unavailable. I was unwillingly single til age 38…precisely twice the age I originally wanted to marry at. So I’m not sure my generation had any real advantages. (I have 20 years on you,. BTW).

  382. O-Tony says:

    that darn hypergamy. atleast i have the red pill more readily available. damn, seems like a wash.

  383. Comment_Whatever says:

    Another aside,

    “Waiting to long” is almost a given for a high SMV/MMV woman.

    Being hypergamous, she wants a high SMV/MMV man and knowing her own “value” will wait things out more than another woman.

    BUT, what is it like for a high SMV/MMV man?

    Well, he is being attacked. And men are not that hypergamous. They ARE, but not that much.

    So high SMV/MMV men are being removed from the market aggressively all the time…. if they want marriage.

    By their 30s, the number of high SMV/MMV women left FAR FAR exceeds the number of high SMV/MMV men left. By a bunch. And the remaining men are having fun…. lol… why would they want to settle down?

    Lolo has found that out.

  384. Comment_Whatever says:

    And by men not being hypergamous, I mean a man will decide he Loves a woman a point below him and marry her anyway. And given the QUANTITY of woman throwing themselves at the top SMV/MMV men, he is likely to be removed. But not necessarily by a woman of his own SMV/MMV value.

    This is the fundamental creator of the ratio of many high MMV women and few high MMV men “avaiable” as men and women enter their 30s.

  385. @ Deti & Van Rooinek
    In regards to sexual attraction vs. actual friendship – easy come, easy go. Btw, I am not discounting sexual attraction it is necessary. However, it cools off in all relationships and IS NOT the basis for a stable long range marriage -it is simply a component.
    Look at all relationship that are based on glandular urges and the common factors for failure are broken verbal, emotional, and physical communication.
    It is very difficult to stay mad or be angry with a best friend or do harm to a best friend.
    Take a look at the Song of Soloman and consider the Shulamite (his unique one). They are passionately involved( Song 8:6-7) and refers to her as a “sister” (Song 5:1-2) as well.

    Real behavioral love(agape, philo) takes time and a “taming of the shrew”
    Song 8:4-5 I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem, that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, until he please. Who is this that cometh up from the wilderness, leaning upon her beloved?
    vs.
    “eros” which is quick and easily extinguished ( this is seen w/Tamar & Amnon in 2 Sam 13)

    If a male is relying on the response to ever changing females “glandular urge” for the basis of a marriage, children, life long commitment/covenant then one might want to learn to be a disciple and a man first before steps into the role of a husband/father.
    Permit me to say – physical age does not make a man nor a profession of Christ does not make one a disciple of Jesus.
    If a male is in daily fellowship with Jesus and the walk of cross carrying discipleship – Jesus will make him a man and then some:)

    Shalom,

    Mike

  386. M3 says:

    Us secular atheist types also have this ‘celibate boyfriend’ issue as well.

    We call these unfortunate creatures LJBF zombies.

  387. Btw, here is a noteworthy blog from Rollo Tomassi from a secular view that is saying the same thing ie…dont let a female define you and/or your goals.

    ” Even in light of this, her constant complaint is that guys are indecisive p__sies now, guy’s are whipped now, guys allow women to define them now – where are all the Men now?”

    http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/the-enemy-is-us/

    It is a very worthwhile read..

  388. GKChesterton says:

    @P Ray,
    Also try to remember, that a player may merely be dealing with the kind of women who want that kind of relationship. So the idea of “silver-tongued swindler” falls flat.

    If we “may” be, then the possibility exists. I haven’t read anything about game that discusses engaging conscious thought. A given woman is responsible for her failure even if the lure is subconscious, but believing that the seducer has no effect is distinctly Pelagian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism).

    @Imanobody,
    So I guess you are fighting for slut shaming in your church so both kinds of behaviors are equally shamed in the church. You have talked to your priest and you have energetically demand that sluts shaming and player shaming are in the shame proportion. You have asked him to shame divorced women, single moms, young women with a boyfriend (which everybody knows they’re fornicating), etc. You have started a crusade inside your church to shame sluts as much as players. Haven’t you?

    No, you haven’t done that.

    I actually have sent a girl home back when _I_ was a pastor for wearing a revealing dress. Her mother went orbital, her dad thanked me. I’ve corrected women directly on divorce. I’ve slammed single moms when it has been there fault (not universal). I’ve chewed out both men and women who take too long to get married. Even to the point that it broke up a personal relationship for a while.

    Please play again. When you aren’t an ignorant baboon.

    @Anon,
    [why you would never...]

    See above. I can’t believe how willing you people are to assume that someone posting _here_ has never done this stuff. Are you dense?

  389. P Ray says:

    @GKChesterton
    “I haven’t read anything about game that discusses engaging conscious thought.”
    You are talking about sex with no conscious consent(is there unconscious consent?). That’s rape.
    Gamers aren’t raping women.
    MRAs/MGTOWs aren’t raping women.
    If the “1 in 4 college women get raped” was true:
    1. why aren’t insurance premiums for women who go to college higher?
    2. why is the management of such colleges so incompetent to allow the statistic to remain unchanged?
    3. how come women aren’t reporting all these rapes?
    4. why aren’t women valuing the nice guys whom they CLAIM they want?
    5. Since only 1 in 4 women are raped … that means that 3 in 4 women aren’t. Hence, not all men are rapists. Why don’t feminists see that?

    “believing that the seducer has no effect is distinctly Pelagian”
    So what happened in the case of priests or the people in religious officialdom who covered up abuse doing? They knew they were wrong … and kept doing it.
    Remember: she has to take her underwear off. She has to allow the sex act to happen.
    What are the women doing in Negril with the “rastitutes” anyway?
    Looking for long-term relationships? They go to be played.

  390. alistair. says:

    are handjobs off the table also?

  391. Perhaps I took Fr. Ripperger too much out of context, because he definitely wasn’t talking about waiting until your 30s to be “established” before marriage. (I think that’s usually just an excuse for putting it off indefinitely anyway, since no one is every totally “ready” for parenting.) He was talking about spiritual and vocational preparation, which could happen at a much younger age if we still expected people to grow up in their teens. The way we do it now, people start dating in their teens, with the assumption that it won’t get serious until at least after college. At some point, they meet someone who really does it for them, and if they stay with that person long enough, they start to consider marriage as a way to keep the person around. But they’ve never considered whether they’re supposed to be married, or thought seriously about what’s involved in it, so it seems like a huge decision, and they’re trying to make it in the midst of the emotional turmoil of a relationship.

    In the traditional paradigm that Fr. Ripperger was talking about, you’d work out your vocation in your teens, so by the time you were nearing the age to move out on your own, you’d already have a pretty good idea whether you were headed for the seminary/monastery or in search of a wife. You might not already be financially prepared, but you’d have a plan to get that way, and you’d be able to expect that your wife would accept some lean years while you got established as a family. Everyone else in your community would be on the same page, so if Sally Mae accepted your invitation to the barn dance (with her dad’s approval), she’d know why you were asking, and you’d know she was open to marriage, and not planning to spend a decade or so pursing a career first.

  392. Anonymous Reader says:

    GKChesterton
    See above. I can’t believe how willing you people are to assume that someone posting _here_ has never done this stuff. Are you dense?

    I cannot speak for the other baboon , but I’m always pleased to see you displaying your true, childish, namecalling nature for everyone else to see, “GKChesteron”. It contrasts so well with that fake, Jimmy Swaggert-style “Holy Joe” act you like to put on, too.

    In my experience, and in the experience of many men (or, as you would refer to us who dare to disagree with you, “baboons”) I have known, women are not chastised m church. Single mothers are not only welcomed, they get baby showers for their latest bastard, and the same flower on Mother’s Day as the married mothers. Divorced women are remarried, in white dresses. Sometimes more than once. Teenaged girls who get knocked up are treated just like Bristol Pain. And so forth, and so on. Men, of course, are called upon to be strong, and Man Up – their sins are routinely dissected (unlike those of women).

    Clearly, you don’t like these facts, so you toss names around, and wave your hands. In short, you are arguing that things I’ve seen with my own eyes, and heard with my own ears, somehow didn’t really happen because they don’t match up with the way you wish the word to be. This “who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes” routine is very much like what feminists have done for years and years. I guess it is because it is easier than dealing with reality. After a few decades of this, it gets old. You are not the first one to play this game. My suggestion is that you just stop.

    Stop with the schoolyard name calling. Stop with denying the real life experience of men. If you don’t want to stop that behavior, then stop whining when you get held to your own standards, i.e. treated by me and other men as you treat us. Say, maybe you can find somewhere in the Bible a quote that suggests you might want to treat me as you want to be treated?

    Now, GKChesterton, can you Man Up and actually answer my challenge? Tell me what you and your wife would do in the case of the babymomma in your conservative church. Be specific. Tell me how you would handle the pastor of your church having a 19-year-old live-at-home unmarried daughter who gets pregnant; how would you shame that slut and continue to go to that church? Be specific. Stop the namecalling. Stop the hand waving.

    Man up and answer a question of mine, for once, without evasions and without namecalling.

  393. GKChesterton says:

    @P Ray,
    You are talking about sex with no conscious consent(is there unconscious consent?). That’s rape.
    Gamers aren’t raping women.

    You are proposing a Pelagian false dilemma. You are proposing that people are perfect and that all temptations can be resisted. This is pure and utter nonsense. Game in the hands of those with no morality increases their change of tempting women who may otherwise resist. When used this way it is immoral and unchristian.

    You then launch into a mindless screed on rape…which I didn’t even bring up…

    @Anonymous,
    I have known, women are not chastised m church.

    Congrats. I’m sure you have. Where you misstepped is in assuming that _I_ had done the same. That is buffoonish behavior. I’m sorry if you don’t recognize it as such.

    Clearly, you don’t like these facts, so you toss names around, and wave your hands.

    One presumes you do? Oh wait you mean that as sarcasm. You are assuming that I disagree with the fact that women are far too often given a pass. Sorry wrong again. You keep on making these totally unfounded assumptions.

    Stop with denying the real life experience of men.

    Check the thread. Just once find where I said, anywhere in thread, that this didn’t happen. You won’t find that. Because I didn’t. The root quote that started this:
    Not [sic] it is not. It is evil and should be destroyed. I’d happily put in stocks both the Alpha’s and the Sluts. Both corrupt.

    Are you disagreeing with this? Or insisting that the only people who get called out our women? I’m sorry that is just as not Christian as giving women a pass. PUA’s are evil. Full stop. They are not beneficial. They do no good. I fully reject them. If that’s a problem with you, tough. But it does not imply that I feel women should be given a pass or that I don’t believe the horror stories of men. It just means I will not replace one evil with another. Your conflation of the two is a problem and I’ve gone on the record in numerous places about which I believe is the primary evil.

    Be specific. Tell me how you would handle the pastor of your church having a 19-year-old live-at-home unmarried daughter who gets pregnant; how would you shame that slut and continue to go to that church?

    Again, as a _pastor_ I have sent a girl home for lose clothing. I’ve never had to deal with a pregnant pastor’s daughter save once when I was a teenager and we were not on friendly terms to start with. For the behavior of his daughter he stepped down from ministry for about fifteen years. I didn’t think that was long enough but I was over-ruled. So move on. I’ve been through this and handled it. I’m sorry the evangelical landscape is so terrible. It truly does terrify me. But as I’ve said before, the cowardice most of you have seen (that I believe exists!) has been beyond my personal experience. Stop asking me to man up when I already have.

  394. P Ray says:

    @GKChesterton:
    Several problems with your thinking:
    1. You are proposing that people are perfect and that all temptations can be resisted.
    Some people are perfect. Others aren’t.
    2. Game in the hands of those with no morality increases their change of tempting women who may otherwise resist. Not every woman who gets played resists it. Women like having sex. Sometimes, not with the same man. Deal with it.

    You then launch into a mindless screed on rape…which I didn’t even bring up…
    Your words: “I haven’t read anything about game that discusses engaging conscious thought.”
    You are talking about sex with no conscious consent(is there unconscious consent?). That’s rape.

    You strike me as a weird kind of pastor, if you are only around to see people get married, but are not interested in whether they stay married.
    I guess it looks good on the PerformanceScoreCard, if you only observe one side of the equation.

  395. GKChesterton says:

    @P Ray,
    Some people are perfect. Others aren’t.

    None are save two. A few came close. Anything else is un-Christian.

    Not every woman who gets played resists it. Women like having sex. Sometimes, not with the same man. Deal with it.

    Never said otherwise. Feel free to quote. You’ll have a hard time finding it.

    You strike me as a weird kind of pastor, if you are only around to see people get married, but are not interested in whether they stay married.

    Again let’s work on the quotes. I never said I was only around people who stayed married. In fact to my knowledge I didn’t mention anything about marriage in this thread. I return your attention to the quote you took exception with (so far this is the second attempt at a change of subject). You are engaging in an argument where evidently no one taps there feet to fast music because we all make fully conscious decisions. Which of course is bullcrap.

  396. Dalrock says:

    @GKChesterton

    I haven’t read anything about game that discusses engaging conscious thought. A given woman is responsible for her failure even if the lure is subconscious, but believing that the seducer has no effect is distinctly Pelagian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism).

    Three issues.

    1) Packed in that statement is the premise that the women aren’t seeking out fornication, but are instead earnestly looking to marry so they don’t fall prey to sexual temptation. This is in denial of the screams of our culture and the stats I’ve shared. You appear to be in deep denial here.

    2) The bulk of game is about making yourself attractive to the woman. It isn’t hypnotism, and is arguably less manipulative than the kinds of sales pitches we experience when looking to buy anything of value. By the same token, a woman who dresses seductively and laughs at all of the man’s jokes isn’t engaging his conscious thought.

    3) This is the big one, lets call it the Trad Con Heisenberg effect. You can’t make statements like that without handing crack to the would be HUSy’s rationalization hamster. It wasn’t my fault, he didn’t engage my conscious thought! Don’t do it, it is cruel. I’m serious about this. How many young women are you willing to feed to the beast to prove that you aren’t succumbing to the double standard? If she were standing on a ledge deciding whether or not to jump, would you say there is no way she can avoid falling off. The ledge is slippery and the winds are too strong! or She can’t help it. Her problems are simply too crushing. She can’t be expected to find the will to live!

  397. GKChesterton says:

    @Dalrock,
    1) Packed in that statement is the premise that the women aren’t seeking out fornication, but are instead earnestly looking to marry so they don’t fall prey to sexual temptation. This is in denial of the screams of our culture and the stats I’ve shared. You appear to be in deep denial here.

    I have no dispute with this. PRay originally called me on this and the quote above that you make reference to presumes that all action is conscious. This is just not true. It ignores the concept of temptation. PRay, inclusive of his comments implying there are lots of perfect people, rejects the concept of temptation.

    2) The bulk of game is about making yourself attractive to the woman. It isn’t hypnotism, and is arguably less manipulative than the kinds of sales pitches we experience when looking to buy anything of value. By the same token, a woman who dresses seductively and laughs at all of the man’s jokes isn’t engaging his conscious thought.

    Again, agreed. But you are arguing past me. I am not excusing here. I am arguing that it can lead to action that would not otherwise have occurred. I am arguing for temptation. Alpha men are already attractive. With game it is like dropping a super model in our bedrooms naked. Most of us are going to fail that test. Thank God he takes our abilities into consideration.

    3) This is the big one, lets call it the Trad Con Heisenberg effect. You can’t make statements like that without handing crack to the would be HUSy’s rationalization hamster. It wasn’t my fault, he didn’t engage my conscious thought! Don’t do it, it is cruel. I’m serious about this. How many young women are you willing to feed to the beast to prove that you aren’t succumbing to the double standard? If she were standing on a ledge deciding whether or not to jump, would you say there is no way she can avoid falling off. The ledge is slippery and the winds are too strong! or She can’t help it. Her problems are simply too crushing. She can’t be expected to find the will to live!

    The opposite effect is also possible where you rationalize, “why not continue I’m already doomed!” And this is largely a male crowed with very few hamsters in attendance. I’m talking to P Ray not a host of hamsters.

    Of course you are arguing at the tail end. This entire thread started here:
    This is why Sunday Morning Nightclub is noble – it shields beta males from predatory church sluts.

    By P Ray to which I responded
    Not it is not. It is evil and should be destroyed. I’d happily put in stocks both the Alpha’s and the Sluts. Both corrupt.

    I don’t _think_ you disagree with this.

  398. alphamission says:

    Not trying to freak out on you GK, because i’ve been in agreement with you, but 2 were perfect? This i do not understand. Only Jesus of Nazareth was perfect, even before the Fall, Adam and Eve had untested “innocence”, not true perfection.

  399. GKChesterton says:

    That is a Protestant view of the world. Catholicism holds that Mary was preserved from sin entirely (and hence the Assumption). Orthodoxy is a bit more complicated but also posits that at least in the protestant sense she didn’t sin. For a much longer answer:
    http://oca.org/questions/saints/sinlessness-of-mary

    Both Adam and Eve failed and therefore aren’t perfect.

  400. Pingback: Implications of the Miracle of Chastity « oogenhand

  401. P Ray says:

    @GKChesterton
    This entire thread started here:
    This is why Sunday Morning Nightclub is noble – it shields beta males from predatory church sluts.
    By P Ray to which I responded”

    TFH typed that.
    GKChesterton, for a guy who quotes people, you must try to be accurate.

    Seems to me you think PUAs are evil for “seducing” women, MRA/MGTOW are evil for “not participating” in the now-rigged marriage situation(and the women who only appreciate good men after they cannot attract the men they really want for anything longer than short-term relationships).
    Looks like you got all men in there.
    Any women to blame for the state of marriage? Or is it “T3H PATRIARCHY” as usual?

  402. GKChesterton says:

    I did misattribute you with that quote. Your response is not misattributed. PUA’s are evil for seducing women. I have stated such.

    I said nothing about MRA or MGTOW. I support men’s rights. I also support marriage as the most stable platform for society and a moral requirement for Christians. At a Christian blog this should not be shocking. If men chose to be celibate more power to them. If they chose to not get legal marriages while marrying in the Church then also more power to them. If they shack up they are participating in a gross evil.

    I again go back to the quote in question that I made earlier (typo and all as I’ve faithfully reproduced it):
    Not it is not. It is evil and should be destroyed. I’d happily put in stocks both the Alpha’s and the Sluts. Both corrupt.

    Funny…I think women are in there. Nice try though on setting up a straw man.

  403. P Ray says:

    ^ But if women are being “Seduced” and “can’t resist” …
    there are no sluts.
    Ready to backpedal now?

  404. Dalrock says:

    @GKC

    And this is largely a male crowed with very few hamsters in attendance. I’m talking to P Ray not a host of hamsters.

    The hamsters are always watching. Not all readers participate in the comments. Most in fact do not.

    Of course you are arguing at the tail end. This entire thread started here:
    This is why Sunday Morning Nightclub is noble – it shields beta males from predatory church sluts.

    By P Ray to which I responded
    Not it is not. It is evil and should be destroyed. I’d happily put in stocks both the Alpha’s and the Sluts. Both corrupt.

    I don’t _think_ you disagree with this.

    I wouldn’t (and don’t) call it noble. However, I do think that efforts to make the carousel safe are part of the fundamental problem. It can’t be made safe. Ever. We need to be clear on this. Furthermore we need to allow the addict to hit rock bottom.

    PUA’s are evil for seducing women. I have stated such.

    Their sin is no different than the women seducing them. The seduction is mutual, and the sin is fornication. There is an answer to the temptation of sexual sin, and the answer is biblical marriage. If you can show me a church which hasn’t turned its back on biblical marriage I would be in your debt. In the meantime, the focus on the PUA is in my mind a crutch, an attempt to avoid doing the painful introspection needed. Calling PUAs evil for obliging the HUSies is an easy way to claim to be courageous without doing anything risky or uncomfortable. No one in your church will take issue with this. Calling out the church on the other hand is costly if you are doing it right.

  405. alphamission says:

    ^ that is what i was looking for.

  406. TFH says:

    PUA’s are evil for seducing women. I have stated such.

    What an absurd worldview. Such an opinion indicates that you don’t think women are adults, but rather children.

    Too bad you don’t think women are mature enough to make adult choices.

    Too bad x 2 that what women do to beta males in full corroboration of the church, is something that does not bug you to a proportional degree despite being vastly more evil.

  407. TFH says:

    Dalrock,

    In the meantime, the focus on the PUA is in my mind a crutch, an attempt to avoid doing the painful introspection needed. Calling PUAs evil for obliging the HUSies is an easy way to claim to be courageous without doing anything risky or uncomfortable.

    Well said. GKC still has a lot of whiteknighting deeply entrenched within his psyche.

    GKC,

    Keep in mind that you have no ability to identify a PUA, even if he is in your church every Sunday. You will simply think of him as a man who has a way with women.

    PMAFT can tell you the same.

  408. sunshinemary says:

    GKC wrote, “I said nothing about MRA or MGTOW. I support men’s rights. I also support marriage as the most stable platform for society and a moral requirement for Christians. At a Christian blog this should not be shocking.”

    As a Christian, I often make comments from a Christian perspective aimed at other Christians, but I’ve found that I need to be explicit about that fact because there are so many non-Christians who participate here (which is not a problem to me). Also, I wouldn’t call this a Christian blog. It is a blog where Christianity is often discussed. It is also a blog that I find to be Christian-friendly. However, I haven’t seen the stated purpose of the blog to be to promote Christianity, nor am I aware of Dalrock ever claiming to be a Christian himself (I’m not implying that he is or that he isn’t, only that he hasn’t discussed it that I have ever seen). So, we Christians can’t assume that our perspective on things will match up with others here. No problem – we can all learn something from each other anyway.

    Dalrock wrote, “I wouldn’t (and don’t) call it noble. However, I do think that efforts to make the carousel safe are part of the fundamental problem. It can’t be made safe. Ever. We need to be clear on this. Furthermore we need to allow the addict to hit rock bottom….(PUAs’) sin is no different than the women seducing them. The seduction is mutual, and the sin is fornication. There is an answer to the temptation of sexual sin, and the answer is biblical marriage.”

    Coming into the manosphere, the thing about the women on the carousel being as much at fault as the PUAs was a completely novel idea to me. I had never heard or thought such a thing. In my ignorance, I suppose I imagined the women to be mostly innocent in their intentions and the men to be near-predators (and by the way, I made dumb statements, here and elsewhere, at first; the blogs where people had enough forbearance to explain things to me calmly, such as here and at Patriactionary, were instrumental in helping me to understand that my frame was completely inaccurate). What Christians seem to be unable to comprehend is that women on the carousel were not dragged there by their hair or by desperation to find a husband. If they are NEVER allowed to experience the consequences of their actions, if they are NEVER called out directly on their sin, if the men ALWAYS get the majority of the blame, which is often the case in the church, then the women will never consider changing. I know most of the people here already know this, but I didn’t know this until recently. I think many people in the church still don’t know this. Those of us in the church who DO know have to stop making excuses.

  409. This debate about PUA’s and GKC’s emphasis on them, and Dalrocks and others blowback at that (with which I concur) is really quite simple. It is one aspect of the over arching issue that faces the church with regard to gender relations, and real Christianity.
    What is the safest target of admonition anytime, anywhere? Its that entity, be it person, company, team, state, city, nation, race, gender that has been painted as being so called number one. Its envy incarnate, partially. Have a water cooler chat and bash whites, bash Americans, bash whoever is elite and privileged and you are IN, when in truth you are no more imaginative than the folks who complain about cafeteria food or bad drivers, its always good for a nod fest.

    Its insidious, secular feminists aptly sold the idea of the patriarchy. The evangelical feminists bought it, but had to fit it to their narrative and create a Christian equivalent of the evil male boogyman. They did it in many ways we discuss here all the time, its conventional wisdom, the norm now that men are perps and women are victims, thats why any statement outside that norm is perceived as radical. I know all that is basic 101 stuff here, but it informs this debate in that pastors and seemingly well intended Christian men are far more comfortable calling out the men, men have a self effacement fetish and women just love it, so the pastor gets good feedback and never has to defend it. Lately they have started to get some blow back, “hey whats about dem wyminz?” so, under low level threat they have cooked up pat answers to continue their weekly screed, servant leadership and weaker vessels and women as responders and whatever cocked up Biblical pretzel they can bake.

    So, GKC, while he is technically correct, in the purist sense of what is stated , when he says he tries to lay blame on both, his context and words reveal his begrudging inclusion of female accountability, then he can still go after the safe target, men, while paying lip service to that silly over used word….balance. Its like a feminist feeling generous when she says “I know women can do this on occasion too”……yea, uh huh….thanks.

    If balance is de rigueur, then the teeter totter is flat assed mashed into the ground on one side, further pressure on that side is plain stupid. Only full relentless pressure on the other side until truth breaks through is called for. And the way we will know truth broke through is when more men are red pill than not, because the meme has been redefined such that even those with a streak of cowardice will speak truth to what they once feared was power (roaring woman)

    It would take years, YEARS, of church telling the truth to set things right. It would require what would seem an inquisition on women just to change the perception of conventional wisdom. In doing so, churches would shrink, many would die, and a massive spike in divorces would ensue and women still clinging to the empowerment they were sold acted out rebelliously.

    Then, some thing happens that figuratively or literally makes women feel like they need to rush to get behind a man for safety, physical, financial, whatever. Men, the bulk of which have at this point started taking their place and not fearing women or other white knight men, will galdly accept that role….again…..which IS balance.

    GKC is mashing on the fully teetered side of the totter.

  410. In the above comment, where I say many would die….I want to be clear, that means many churches would die

  411. In the end, the Celibate Boyfriend is the equivalent of those women who wail about their “commitment-phobic” lovers. If men are the guardians of commitment, it makes no sense for a woman to go on rewarding a man with the sex he desires when she has not received his coveted commitment. Likewise, it makes no sense for a Christian man to bestow the faithfulness and emotional comforts of a husband on a woman who goes all deer-in-the-headlights when he mentions marriage.

    That being said, being a Celibate Girlfriend is not much fun either. Virgin women want to get married and enjoy guilt-free sex as much as men do… and they don’t get to propose; that’s the man’s job. I agree with just about everything van Rooinek has said so far: if a couple can’t discern marriage after a year of marriage-minded dating, they need to split. Actually, they probably should have split up after 6 months. Even 3 months. If it’s their first serious dating relationship (for one or both), a year may be reasonable, though. And I don’t mean that anyone should look forward to multiple “relationships” – if your first love becomes your spouse, that’s the best outcome.

    I am not exactly sure how Dalrock’s hypothetical suitor would differ from Van Rooinek-qua-boyfriend, that is, as the man his wife dated exclusively for 6 months before the proposal came. Can a suitor be exclusive? My grandmother had three suitors at once, although one of them monopolized her for some time in high school and could be considered a boyfriend. In the end, she got three proposals in a week, to which she gave two Dear John letters and one acceptance. Can a girl become emotionally invested in a suitor without instantly accepting/demanding his proposal? What if he does not offer a proposal as soon as she realizes she is drawn to him? Not even the strict propriety of Regency-era courtship could guard Jane Austen’s heroines from being friendzoned for months or even years, secretly pining for gentlemen who declined, for whatever reason, to offer them marriage.

  412. alphamission says:

    for all that men must sacrifice and put at risk in Marriage 2.0 women should absolutely be the ones proposing.

  413. deti says:

    GKC: “PUA’s are evil for seducing women. I have stated such.”

    Dalrock: “Their sin is no different than the women seducing them. The seduction is mutual, and the sin is fornication. *** [T]he focus on the PUA is in my mind a crutch, an attempt to avoid doing the painful introspection needed. Calling PUAs evil for obliging the HUSies is an easy way to claim to be courageous without doing anything risky or uncomfortable. No one in your church will take issue with this.”

    This is all based on a refusal to acknowledge what women are doing with casual sex. It’s a refusal to see what the carousel is and why women get on it. It’s not a pussy carousel, it’s a cock carousel. Women get on the carousel to ride the pretty horsies (alpha males). They are not on the carousel or engagin in casual sex or hookup sex to find husbands. They are on the carousel for the sex. They ride for as long as they want to, as long as they don’t get a disease, or until they get kicked off. The price of admission is giving up the booty.

  414. Anonymous Reader says:

    GKChesterton:
    @Anonymous,
    I have known, women are not chastised m church.

    Congrats. I’m sure you have. Where you misstepped is in assuming that _I_ had done the same. That is buffoonish behavior. I’m sorry if you don’t recognize it as such.

    I am not a mind reader. All I know about you is what you choose to type here. So what I know about you from multiple thread is multifold but boils down to three things:
    1. You don’t like answering hard questions. It takes multiple attempt to get you to even address them.
    2. You react childishly to anyone who challenges you with hard questions, resorting to schoolyard namecalling.
    3. You prefer abtruse theological debates to the hard questions.

    Given the above, why should anyone assume that you have ever, anywhere, shamed any slut?

    Stop with denying the real life experience of men.

    Check the thread. Just once find where I said, anywhere in thread, that this didn’t happen. You won’t find that. Because I didn’t. The root quote that started this:
    Not [sic] it is not. It is evil and should be destroyed. I’d happily put in stocks both the Alpha’s and the Sluts. Both corrupt.

    And when asked just how you would go about shaming the sluts, challenging you with example, challenging you with examples, you punted some nonsense about a girls dress, and resorted to the usual childish namecalling.

    Are you disagreeing with this? Or insisting that the only people who get called out our women? I’m sorry that is just as not Christian as giving women a pass.

    One more time, since you do not seem to read carefully: Women are not called out for their bad behavior in the modern US church.

    I cannot make it any clearer than that. You apparently live in a fantasy world where preachers routinely thunder the evils of female promiscuity from the podium on a regular basis. NO one else can find this place, only you live there.

    PUA’s are evil. Full stop. They are not beneficial. They do no good. I fully reject them.

    That’s totally clear, and totally irrelevant to the subject at hand: the inabilty of the American Churchians to say one word about bad behavior of women

    If that’s a problem with you, tough. But it does not imply that I feel women should be given a pass or that I don’t believe the horror stories of men. It just means I will not replace one evil with another.

    Strawman argument.

    Your conflation of the two is a problem and I’ve gone on the record in numerous places about which I believe is the primary evil.

    Exactly. “Men bad, women better than men”, the average feminist could not put it any clearer.

    Be specific. Tell me how you would handle the pastor of your church having a 19-year-old live-at-home unmarried daughter who gets pregnant; how would you shame that slut and continue to go to that church?

    Again, as a _pastor_ I have sent a girl home for lose clothing.

    That is irrelevant to the question, it is a smoke screen, you are evading the question once again.

    I’ve never had to deal with a pregnant pastor’s daughter save once when I was a teenager and we were not on friendly terms to start with. For the behavior of his daughter he stepped down from ministry for about fifteen years. I didn’t think that was long enough but I was over-ruled. So move on. I’ve been through this and handled it. I’m sorry the evangelical landscape is so terrible. It truly does terrify me. But as I’ve said before, the cowardice most of you have seen (that I believe exists!) has been beyond my personal experience. Stop asking me to man up when I already have.you is that you

    So once again, we see that GKChesterton cannot answer the hard questions. Handwaving about some girls dress, and “moving on” is the answer. I’m sure he would rather discuss how many hairs were on the third knuckle of Eve’s left hand or some such, but that is not relevant to the real word that I live in, that my friends and associates live in, that my relations live in.

    Yet again, I ask GKChesterton:
    If you and your family were going to a church where a single mother babymomma had just given birth to another bastard, and the rest of the church was treating her to showers & other benefits of motherhood just like the married mothers, what would you do?

    If the pastor of the only church in your denomination in town had a 19 year old daughter living at home who got pregnant, and the pastor kept right on as head of that church, what would you do?
    Don’t tell me about the girl with the cocktail dress, don’t rave about PUA’s, don’t babble about your teenaged years.

    Just man up and tell me what you would do in the two above, real word, cases. Tell me how you would shame the sluts in each case, since you insist that you shame sluts exactly as much as you shame PUA’s. You claim you would put both in stocks – fine, here is a real world example that should be trivial for you to solve, with your vast experience and theological knowledge.

    Don’t tap dance around the hard questions. Just answer them.

  415. TheCapitalist says:

    As a traditionalist Christian I applaud her decision to wait until marriage to have sex.

    However, speaking as a pragmatist and realist, she has sabotaged her value on the dating market by using up the majority of her child-bearing years in training for the Olympics. Guys that WANT to wait until marriage to have sex… Christian men, etc., tend to be more traditional in their values and place a high regard on motherhood, fertility, and a feminine/nurturing nature.

    Why would such a man seek HER out, when he could have a 23-year-old aspiring mother who will not be distracted by the Olympics instead?

  416. GKChesterton says:

    @Sunshine,

    He is and he has.

    @Dalrock,
    Their sin is no different than the women seducing them. The seduction is mutual, and the sin is fornication.

    No the sins are not equivalent under any moral model because they are not equal. Nor should we desire either to fall for the trap. We put them both in stocks or, as our wise Father decreed a long time ago, marry them off and make it stick. This is better for everyone.

    In the meantime, the focus on the PUA is in my mind a crutch

    If I called one evil instead of asking for them both to be in stocks I’d deserve that. I didn’t.

    @TFH,
    What an absurd worldview. Such an opinion indicates that you don’t think women are adults, but rather children.

    What I don’t think is that we are islands. Sin is a contagion that spreads. Nor am I a Pelagian. I can not make good choices completely independently. In the case of a seduced women she is still liable but her responsibility is mitigated in the same way a seduced man does not sin as greatly as the seducer. I don’t understand how you believe we’re perfect moral agents.

    A seducer is in control. The seduced is not. That is not to say that some women don’t willingly fall into the arms of the seducer. Such a claim would be ludicrous. But there are men that have a high pull on women who are working on the woman’s instinct not her reason.

    And yes, being a patriarchalist we have an assumed responsibility here. Now that being said I believe that in most cases women are the seducers. Proverbs and most ancient commentators agree.

    Keep in mind that you have no ability to identify a PUA, even if he is in your church every Sunday. You will simply think of him as a man who has a way with women.

    Oh yes, he is difficult to root out. That’s why the best strategy is slut shaming. However, to ignore him is to imperil both his soul and those he pursues.

    @Empath,

    So, GKC, while he is technically correct, in the purist sense of what is stated , when he says he tries to lay blame on both, his context and words reveal his begrudging inclusion of female accountability, then he can still go after the safe target, men, while paying lip service to that silly over used word….balance. Its like a feminist feeling generous when she says “I know women can do this on occasion too”……yea, uh huh….thanks.

    Lip service? Really? Get off it. You note I’m “technically correct”. No, I’m completely correct. As Christians we should correct both. Nor was anyone sold on patriarchy; the feminists least of all. It is the single most successful social model world wide. There isn’t a society that doesn’t use it. Societies that discard or attempt to discard it collapse. The only thing sold in feminism is that patriarchy is bad.

    It would take years, YEARS, of church telling the truth to set things right. It would require what would seem an inquisition on women just to change the perception of conventional wisdom.

    As much as I appreciate what is shown here you guys really need some historical perspective. This is not the first crisis the Church has faced. Nor does it even enter the top five. It has survived the Diocletian persecutions, gnosticism, the Arians, the Donatists, the Pelagians, Julian the Apostate, Communism, and a host of others. All of these were deeper and wider crisis. And with gnosticism we get proto-feminism.

    I want righteous anger, but Dalrock’s claims that no Church is dealing with this and your own “years” when the Church has continued for millennia is overblown. Let’s agree feminism must die and remember both Judaism and Christianity have had way worse rough patches. Let’s also remember that despair is a sin.

    This is all based on a refusal to acknowledge what women are doing with casual sex.

    Nothing in my above comment indicates that I don’t believe women knowingly engage in casual sex. Zip. Again, I’ve been on the receiving end of sob stories and had to tell people that:
    * No that wasn’t date rape…you got drunk and were looking for interest
    * If you treat a man like that he will not marry you in the end or if he does everyone will be miserable (boy eventually did jet…which was too bad…they were both good kids just brain washed)

    @Anonymous,

    One more time, since you do not seem to read carefully: Women are not called out for their bad behavior in the modern US church.

    First, the hypocrisy on the name calling must hurt.

    Yes they are. They are not called out enough. And the worst offenders are a subsection of the Church that is dying right now (eg evangelicalism). And again, let’s work on some historical perspective.

    Exactly. “Men bad, women better than men”, the average feminist could not put it any clearer.

    Quote. Now. Put up or shut up.

    That is irrelevant to the question, it is a smoke screen, you are evading the question once again.

    The question is would I shame women for illicit behavior. That is a direct answer to the question. The remainder of it was a hypothetical. I presented you with a concrete example rather than a hypothetical. Your hypothetical is flawed. I can answer “yes I would” I can’t answer specifics on how because I don’t know what the social situation is. Is a marriage happening? What is her presumed betrothed response? What actions have already been taken? Accept the concrete and move on.

    If you and your family were going to a church where a single mother babymomma had just given birth to another bastard, and the rest of the church was treating her to showers & other benefits of motherhood just like the married mothers, what would you do?

    My concrete example exceeds this hypothetical, I have acted to stop this behavior and I will act to stop it again. Possible action includes:
    1.) Ordering my wife not to go
    2.) Consultation with the pastor
    3.) Speaking openly in Church functions that the behavior was inappropriate
    4.) Forbidding my family to intervene
    5.) Appealing to higher levels in the hierarchy

    All of this is predicated on her behavior. Is she flaunting it? Does she seem horrified? Has the family taken action? Has her father taken action? Have I and her father had a talk that is satisfactory?

    And while this may shock you, no Church I’ve _ever_ been to has thrown a shower for an unwed mother. They were generally shamed. Growing up they were shunned and no one would have talked to them. Which evidently can’t happen because no one does this…anyway…

    As to your “theological” comments. Christianity is about theology. It is one of the things that makes it unique. How ’bout you consider you may have to think more deeply than Eve’s knuckles.

    If the pastor of the only church in your denomination in town had a 19 year old daughter living at home who got pregnant, and the pastor kept right on as head of that church, what would you do?

    I directly answered this one in that in the only case where this happened he was forced out. Again evidently that couldn’t possibly happen. In fact for a divorce a man was recently removed from the active priesthood in my area since he would then be in violation of Paul’s letter to Timothy (oh noes! theology!).

    If he somehow maintained his seat I’d work through the proper channels to see this corrected. This would include a personal audience with the bishop and possible active protest.

    Just man up and tell me what you would do in the two above, real word, cases.

    I answer with real world cases. You present hypotheticals. And I’m told to answer real world cases. Amazing. Just flat out amazing.

    What probably stings you most is that I’m a walking talking example of why your absolutism is wrong.

  417. Dalrock says:

    @GKC

    No the sins are not equivalent under any moral model because they are not equal. Nor should we desire either to fall for the trap.

    What I think you are disregarding is that the women are making a deliberate decision to postpone marriage and play the field. These aren’t nuns caught at a moment of weakness. They made the lifestyle choice long ago. The only question is which men they are going to fornicate with. You are still aiding and abetting their rationalization hamster.

    We put them both in stocks or, as our wise Father decreed a long time ago, marry them off and make it stick. This is better for everyone.

    If we could force them to marry and make it stick, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Until then, it is a crutch to avoid fighting the real problem with the church.

  418. Dalrock says:

    The selective outrage over the “Sunday morning nightclub” is no different than if the women in the church set up a brothel, and the pastor and other men were outraged that the johns had the audacity to corrupt their church.

    Likewise the PUAs aren’t corrupting the HUSies any more than the johns are corrupting the prostitutes (or vice versa).

  419. deti says:

    GKC, Dalrock:

    “What I think you are disregarding is that the women are making a deliberate decision to postpone marriage and play the field. These aren’t nuns caught at a moment of weakness. They made the lifestyle choice long ago. The only question is which men they are going to fornicate with. You are still aiding and abetting their rationalization hamster.”

    The sins of the PUA and the women who willingly sleep with them are equal. These women willingly sign up for NSA sex with men they find attractive. No one is being raped, misled or misrepresented. No one is pulling wool over anyone’s eyes. She is not in it to get a husband. SHe is in it for the sex, for validation, for power, for a free meal, for a good time, for the hell of it, for the feelings — whatever, but she’s not in it to goad him into “commitment” or marriage. And we know this is so because women are the gatekeepers of sex. They, and only they, decide how, when, where and with whom sex happens. That carries with it factual and moral responsibility.

    Yes, these men are playing on their “instinct, not reason”. Of course they are. THese women WANT their instincts, their hindbrains, their feelings, to be indulged. No woman reasons her way into attraction to a man. The men who have the greatest success with women are the men who learn how to tap into her feelings, emotions, and instincts.

    And what’s more, women WANTED it this way. They wanted, and now have, the best of both worlds: the freedom to work like men, live like men, act like men, talk like men and have sex like men; but at the same time, they get their hindbrains tickled, their feelings indulged, their basest instincts satisfied with hot alpha sex. It should be no surprise to anyone that the world is this way now.

    Women at large, and specifically the women who live by this code, are factually, morally and spiritually responsible for it.

  420. deti says:

    The reason we know that women sleeping with PUAs for sex is this: Your average carousel rider between ages 18 and 30 could get any one of two or three beta providers to marry her anytime she wants. All she would have to do is step off the carousel, eschew alpha males, date a couple of betas for a few months, signal her clear intent to marry, and she will have a ring and a future wedding date inside of 12 months.

  421. deti says:

    *Hit send before comment was done*

    But women riding the carousel are not choosing this. They choose the alphas.

    Even women who aren’t riding the carousel are standing there watching it. Carousel watchers are thos who get to ride very infrequently or pine away for alphas they want to have sex with, or date or marry. After 20 + years of watching all this play out, the average woman with a sex rank of 4-6 thinks she’s enttiled to ride the carousel and then marriage to a hot alpha.

    If the opposite were true, then why are we hearing story after story of men who can’t get a date to save their lives? Why won’t Ellen the Elementary School Teacher or Susie Sunday School Teacher or Cathy the Church Secretary date these men? Why won’t Bonnie Bank Teller date these good men? Or Connie College Student? Or Molly Museum curator? Or Marian the Librarian?

    We’re not talking about HB 9s and 10s. We’re not talking about high flyers leading fabulous lives. We’re talking about average women leading average, mundane lives. We’re talking about the kind of women who 50 to 60 years ago would be married and pregnant by age 25,and living halfway decent lives.

    But these women do not want that life. Conditioning by mass media, Disney, and unrestrained hypergamy leads the average woman to a night of paradise by the dashboard light with an alpha who will sex her up, thus wildly inflating her own perception of her SMV and ruining her for marriage — ALL THIS BY HER OWN CHOICE. After tasting some alpha dick, she won’t settle for a beta provider.

    And this leads back to HER choices, HER decisions, HER actions, HER consequences.

  422. Or, Deti, Western men need to stop behaving like gentlemen. If the average man started calling sluts, sluts, that would be a good start.

  423. Anonymous Reader says:

    GKChesterton:
    @Anonymous,
    One more time, since you do not seem to read carefully: Women are not called out for their bad behavior in the modern US church.

    First, the hypocrisy on the name calling must hurt.

    You do not read carefully, GKC, that has been demonstrated multiple times in the last few months. It is a statement of observed fact. If anyone is a hypocrite, it is you, for attempting to bully other men into agreeing with you via childish namecalling, and when that fails reverting to the Holy Joe mode – only to switch back to namecalling when someone dares to ask a hard question you clearly would rather not answer.

    Yes they are.
    Not in my experience. Not in the experience of many other men on this site, and on other sites. So you are arguing that I and others should ignore what we see with our own eyes, hear with our own ears, and blindly, without evidence, believe you … because you say so.

    Go tell Elusive Wapiti that women in the US are called out for their bad behavior – then explain to him how it is that the Roman Catholic church sold an annullment to his wife after she filed for divorce, without even bothering to ask him for his side of the disagreement. Go ahead, tell him. That’s the micro picture, the macro picture is a 30% divorce rate in the Roman Catholic church, and more annullments granted in the US than in all of the other RC churches on the planet combined. Explain how these rather inconvenient facts fit in with your claim.
    They are not called out enough.

    No. They are not called out at all so far as I can tell, based on what I see, what I hear, the churches that I visit from time to time, the men in different denominations I know. Real world experience tells me this. You, someone on a web site, tell me different. Which should I believe, the reality around me, or your empty words?

    And the worst offenders are a subsection of the Church that is dying right now (eg evangelicalism). And again, let’s work on some historical perspective.

    The worst offenders appear to be the mainline Protestant denominations: the Episcopal church for a start, a lot of branches of Methodism, mainstream Presbyterian churches, the United Church of Christ (Obama’s church in Chicago), mainstream Lutheran churches, as well the evangelicals (a definition that is fuzzy). But also the Roman Catholic church. Eastern Orthodox churches appear to be too recently arrived to have been corrupted too much yet, but frankly there are so few of them I’ve never seen one and cannot have any meaningful opinion.

    I wrote:
    Exactly. “Men bad, women better than men”, the average feminist could not put it any clearer.

    Quote. Now. Put up or shut up.

    You deleted it, apparently deliberately, but I’ll repost it:

    GKChesteron wrote:
    Your conflation of the two is a problem and I’ve gone on the record in numerous places about which I believe is the primary evil.

    Exactly. The PUA’s are the primary evil. Women’s promiscuity is secondary. Therefore, men have agency, and responsibility, whiie women are helpless pawns with no agency, minimal free will, and thus minimal responsibility for their own actions. Look, you keep saying “I hold women responsible” on paragraph, and then a short while later you are back to blaming men for all the sexual misconduct of society. This is nothing less than “Men Bad, Women Better”, and it is a gynocentric notion that is a premise of feminism. You offer many other examples where you say women are responsible agents of their own actions, but then decide a moment later that “the seducer” has the greater responsibility.

    It is obvious, going all the way back to your non-answers regarding murderesses, that you operate from a premise that women are more moral than men, or have less free will / agency than men, or perhaps both. I’m sure you can’t or won’t see this contradiction in your own writing but it glares out like a neon sign to many other men who read your text.

    Regarding the “cocktail dress issue”, I wrote:
    That is irrelevant to the question, it is a smoke screen, you are evading the question once again.

    The question is would I shame women for illicit behavior. That is a direct answer to the question.

    If wearing a skimpy dress is the most serious form of female misbehavior you can think of, then you need to read more of this site.

    The remainder of it was a hypothetical.

    No. As I have told you before, I know people who are wrestling in their church with the presence of a babymomma who has born at least one and possibly two children out of marriage, as a full member of that church. (One and possibly two because listening to a few people talking grimly through gritted teeth it wasn’t clear, and I didn’t want to interrupt.) Not hypothetical, real.

    I presented you with a concrete example rather than a hypothetical. Your hypothetical is flawed.

    My “hypothetical” is a real family, in a real church. A church that doesn’t allow women to preach, or on the leadership, so it counts as “conservative”, too. As I told you in a different thread, and you replied to it. Try to keep up.

    I can answer “yes I would” I can’t answer specifics on how because I don’t know what the social situation is. Is a marriage happening? What is her presumed betrothed response? What actions have already been taken? Accept the concrete and move on.

    As I told you before, this woman may have been married for her first child, but that man is gone. Each child has a different father. Each birth has been treated by the church the same way that births to married women are treated. I’m sure she’s “confessed” to someone how wrong her actions were, but I’m certain that she’s never given any of her bastards up for adoption, too. As I told you before, the information is given to me in a quiet corner by frustrated members of the church, through gritted teeth, because apparently “Judge not” and “let him who is without sin cast the first stone” are the only to Bible quotes anyone feels are needed – there are women who are caring for their “sister” just like she’s married.
    I asked:
    If you and your family were going to a church where a single mother babymomma had just given birth to another bastard, and the rest of the church was treating her to showers & other benefits of motherhood just like the married mothers, what would you do?
    GKC
    My concrete example exceeds this hypothetical,

    Real. World. Situation. Please. Remember. This. Fact.

    I have acted to stop this behavior and I will act to stop it again. Possible action includes:
    1.) Ordering my wife not to go
    2.) Consultation with the pastor
    3.) Speaking openly in Church functions that the behavior was inappropriate
    4.) Forbidding my family to intervene
    5.) Appealing to higher levels in the hierarchy

    Thanks for finally replying. Some of these things have been done. All I have is second hand information, but apparently the church leadership is willing to keep her around in order to help her children – they attend some kind of church-related school, if you recall. Whether there’s been any statement in public by the pastor or leadership I can’t tell.

    All of this is predicated on her behavior. Is she flaunting it? Does she seem horrified? Has the family taken action? Has her father taken action? Have I and her father had a talk that is satisfactory?

    I can’t tell if she’s “flaunting” it or not, and that’s a word that is ambiguous: “flaunting” to me might well look like just normal “You Go, Grrl!” modern woman behavior to someone else. I did ask if she had family in the town, and the answer was negative – her family lives somewhere else. Since she appears to be in her 30′s, I doubt that appealing to her father would be very useful anyway.

    And while this may shock you, no Church I’ve _ever_ been to has thrown a shower for an unwed mother. They were generally shamed. Growing up they were shunned and no one would have talked to them. Which evidently can’t happen because no one does this…anyway…

    Well, maybe the world isn’t the same as it was when you were growing up, eh? This is the kind of stuff I see, and while it is perhaps an extreme case, it is not unique. Go to any mega-church and I am all but certain that similar situations can be found.

    As to your “theological” comments. Christianity is about theology.

    And if it is never applied to a real world situation, then what’s the point? Suppose I know the Heimlich maneuver, but refuse to get out of my chair to apply my knowledge in a situation where someone at the next table is choking on their steak? What good does my theoretical knowledge do for anyone?

    It is one of the things that makes it unique. How ’bout you consider you may have to think more deeply than Eve’s knuckles.

    Given the number of times that you have been challenged with the above real world situation, and punted it, evaded it, avoided it – only to rise to discuss some abstract theological question, I believe my point stands. All your fancy how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin theorizing is worthless if you cannot apply it to the real world, and until this posting, that is what you have refused to do. If you cannot smell the whiff of hypocritical garbage in your own behavior, then maybe you need to get out in the world more and read theology less?
    I asked:
    If the pastor of the only church in your denomination in town had a 19 year old daughter living at home who got pregnant, and the pastor kept right on as head of that church, what would you do?

    I directly answered this one in that in the only case where this happened he was forced out.

    That is not a direct answer, unless you are claiming that one single family has the power to force a pastor out of a church. I’m sure that is true in some places – the richest builder / developer / contractor, or lawyer, or banker, who is the bankroll of a church could do that. But the average family in the pew can either stay, or go, in my experience and in the experience of my co-workers, relations, professional colleagues, acquaintances, etc.

    Again evidently that couldn’t possibly happen.

    Sure it could happen. But I didn’t ask you what could happen, I asked you what you would do if you were a member of a church where this situation occurred. By the way, this isn’t a hypothetical, either. I know some people in this situation. It’s the only church of their denomination in town, and the “solution” to the problem was that the 19 year old daughter & her bastard child moved out of town. Went to stay with an aunt or some other relation in another state. The pastor is still in that church. Maybe he’ll retire in a few years, I don’t know. But this is a real world situation that I have heard from reliable, trustworthy men – and I’ve been in that church, seen that woman and her child, with my own eyes a few years back. It’s not a hypothetical. It’s a reality.

    In fact for a divorce a man was recently removed from the active priesthood in my area since he would then be in violation of Paul’s letter to Timothy (oh noes! theology!).

    That would be the logical and sensible thing to do, I’m in agreement. But again, it doesn’t answer the question I asked. What Would You Do? You are going to a church. It’s the only one in town of your denomination. You are not a member of the leadership group. What Would You Do?

    If he somehow maintained his seat I’d work through the proper channels to see this corrected. This would include a personal audience with the bishop and possible active protest.

    That’s reasonable, too. Apparently, in many Protestant churches, the local leadership is pretty heavily in control. If they don’t want to remove the pastor, he ain’t leaving. What Would You Do?

    I wrote, annoyed:
    Just man up and tell me what you would do in the two above, real word, cases.

    I answer with real world cases. You present hypotheticals. And I’m told to answer real world cases. Amazing. Just flat out amazing.

    My apologies for not making it clear before that the two examples are from real, genuine, churches, where real, genuine, people are in real unpleasant situations. I’ll strive for greater clarity in the future, when addressing you.

  424. Anonymous Reader says:

    GKChesterton:
    What probably stings you most is that I’m a walking talking example of why your absolutism is wrong.

    What absolutism would that be? I state that US Churchianity doesn’t take on women’s bad behavior. I offer real world examples – remember Mary Winkler? Sure you do, you avoided writing one word of criticism of her for quite some time. Is she in prison for murder? Nope. Did she get custody of her children? Yup. Did she get a fawning interview on TV? Yup.

    Did any church take a visible stand on her crime? Not to my knowledge. I’ve looked, perhaps I missed one somewhere (I don’t claim infallibility). Is murdering your husband in cold blood “bad behavior”? Yes, I believe even you can agree that is true. And where was, or is, the huge protest from American Churchianty? Why, it isn’t.

    That’s one example. There are others. Lots of them. 40% of children are born to women that aren’t married. Any headlines on Drudge or other news aggregators “Churchmen Stand Against Babymommas”? Nope. I can go on. Shall I? Do you need more evidence that bad behavior by women is just not a priority, an issue, for American Churchianity?

    In closing, I suspect that what stings you the most is the fact that your gynocentric view of women, possibly taught to you in childhood and later on, is being contradicted by reality. Faced with facts that just can’t be squared with “all women just want to be helpers”, etc. you lash out at the bearers of bad news. But you can shoot all the messengers you want, that won’t change reality.

    Sorry about that.

  425. deti says:

    To me all this comes back to choices.

    Women are choosing to have sex with alpha men.

    Or they choose to “play the field” and not commit to marriage.

    Or they choose to pout, petulantly sit it out, and whine and grouse that the hot alpha men won’t sex them, or date them, or marry them. They choose “never to settle” for a boring icky beta. They lament “Where have all the good men gone?”

    THe price for sex with hot alphas, or the possibility thereof, is she gives it up with no guarantee of commitment, and ruining herself later for marriage. And you know something? These women are willing to pay that price.

    Or, the wise ones choose to throw in early with a good man they fall head over heels in love with (while they still can), choose to treat him well, and choose to stay married.

  426. deti says:

    “THe price for sex with hot alphas, or the possibility thereof, is she gives it up with no guarantee of commitment, and ruining herself later for marriage. And you know something? These women are willing to pay that price.”

    These women are screaming loud and clear by their actions that they prefer sex with alphas, being part of a harem, sharing a hot alpha, serial monogamy. They wanted it, fought tooth and nail for the right to it, and practice it . They fought for the right to f**k like men. They got it. They SAY they want marriage. But what they DO shows they want hot alpha sex.

  427. Anonymous Reader says:

    As a coda to my two previous comments, there may well be churches out there that won’t let a divorced woman remarry (with or without a white dress), I just can’t seem to see them. Perhaps the Churches of Christ (not the UCC) mentioned on a comment thread last month by a man from the Midwest would be an example of such a church. If anyone knows, I’m sure Dalrock would be happy to provide space here to explore that, announce it, etc.I’d be pleased to see it myself. It would be a change from the happy-clappy, Jesus is My Boyfriend / Best Friend / Always Forgiver No Matter What I Do approach that I encounter in diverse denominations, in different locations.

    Again, GKC, all I know is what I see – of the world, of parts of the word, and of you. I get invited into various churches, in various parts of the country and I don’t see or hear any criticism of bad behavior by women. I don’t see it. I don’t hear it. And other men tell me pretty much the same thing.

    Look, I’ll take you at your word regarding what you’ve done as a pastor but you must come to grips with the fact that there’s a bigger world than your niche, and it isn’t at all running in the same way as your little corner does. Dislike the facts all you wish, they won’t change. Being deliberately, willfully blind to the facts won’t help your argument one bit.

  428. Anonymous Reader says:

    Oh, and one more example just came to mind. I believe it was Slwerner who some years back was present in a church for a gynocentric spectacle of absurd proportions. It is his experience, not mine, so I summarize in order to avoid writing something not true.

    Summary:
    A man’s wife cheated on him in a sexual affair. She got caught. As part of their churchian “reconciliation”, he was required to stand up before the entire church, and confess that he had not been a good husband to her & therefore her cheating was his fault – for which he apologized. Obviously her bad behavior did not require her to publicly shame herself.
    If Slwerner wishes, I’m sure he can fill you in on some of the details.

    Does this seem wrong in any way to you? By the way, Slwerner is no longer at that church, for some reason or other…

    This is an extreme example of a gynocentric church. Softer versions can be found pretty much anywhere: Men’s groups that are heavy on shaming men for bad things they did, women’s groups that are all about affirmations and “building women up”. Dalrock has posted some links from time to time to various Churchians that supposedly are pro-marriage such as Focus on the Family, Mark Driscoll’s “Mars Hill” church, Sheila Gregoire, et al and the gynocentrism is quite easy to see, for those who have the right pair of glasses. And it appears you need a new prescription; your eyes keep missing some things that ar right in front of you.

    And this gynocentrism, this elevation of women to a special category, this “men are animals, women are saints” mind set is what leads to the celibate boyfriend. Because as men who have posted here can testify, some number of those good, Churchian girls / young women who keep a celibate boyfriend around for a few years are not, themselves, celibate in the least. In some cases, they are riding the Alpha cock carousel – freely, of their own decision – while keeping a beta boyfriend celibate kind of like a spare tire.

    And the American churchians don’t have much to say about this. Many of them cannot even see the problem. Perhaps they need some new glasses…

  429. Case in point, another anecdote, but one of many, along with data I found while obsessively researching this during my 18 month separation….
    After my wife filed divorce, the virus leaps next door to a superb beta guy married to a women who was on her second marriage. The guy had gotten her in church and seemingly settled down (though she flirted so badly with me openly to the point my wife was appalled, the woman had monstrous “assets” and anyway what was I saying….)
    The gal and a few other neighborhood women went and signed up for salsa lessons. This gal ends up not just humping the alpha latin salsa dancer teacher, she files divorce and literally walks from her kids and husband and home and everything. She had a good middle income job and she took a leave of absence and went on a dance competition tour. They were big in the local 1st baptist church. he was a deacon. What did the church do? Did they organize some help for the guy, maybe some rides for kids or something?
    NOPE
    They organized that stuff for the MOM! They said oh she is in town so little and is so busy we must facilitate her time with her kids. The provided child care when she worked when the kids stayed with her, they took kids to appointments for her, and otherwise utterly coddled her. The good man…….nada!
    Similar happened to me (not salsa related) and the church (not the 1st Baptist) sprung into action supporting my wife, mowing the lawn, helping paint and repair our home so she could sell it, for me???? NADA, not even a phone call to see if I was OK. We ended up reconciling, but during the time apart I learned how the cow ate the cabbage. GKC suffers from the illusion that afflicts all white knights, though his is a slightly different take on that knighthood. I went and downloaded over a hundred sermons (text) from random online churches, they were ones on marriage or moms day and dads day, I also viewed the ministry offerings under mens and womens ministry. Ive shared this info before. I found NOTHING that could remotely be called accountability for women. sermons praised women and bashed men to step up, ministry was accountability for men and pandering to low self esteem for women. I attended Divorce Care and found it to be an evangelical support group for women filing frivolous divorces. Promise Keepers was grounded in male accountability. Dalrock is 100% correct, there has yet to be identified a church that talks at and to women. That guy awhile back who claimed he had this niche denomination that did just that, I forget his exact claims but I was never convinced because based on his statements I believe he was blissfully ignorant and wouldnt know it if it sat on him.

    Its sad that men love self effacing so much and suffer the illusion that by giving off a kind of “Im not like other guys” vibe, they are JUST LIKE the other guys….mesmerized and pandering to the higher form….female

  430. Anonymous Reader says:

    Argh. Caveat and addition: I’m sure that not all celibate boyfriends are bonded to secret sluts. I’m sure there are young men and women who are both celibate during their “boyfriend/girlfriend” state, just as I’m sure there are many shades of grey out there. I do not mean to imply that there’s only one form of the celibate boyfriend. But I do wish to point out the silence of churches when it comes to young, promiscuous, women. Sorry about that, GKC, that’s what I see. Your experience apparently differs.

  431. sunshinemary says:

    @ Empah

    Wow, thanks for sharing those examples. That really clarified for me some of the criticism that has been leveled against the church. I’m starting to understand the treachery. It’s like Christians are reading John 8:10-11 (Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”) but stop reading after the word “declared”.

  432. deti says:

    Anonymous Reader:

    Excellent comments. There are so many exacmples of this behavior by women.

    A woman has sex with multiple men. Here are her explanations:

    –I wanted him to be my boyfriend
    –I thought he was my boyfriend
    –He said he loved me
    –I was drunk
    –I just wanted someone to love me
    –I was looking for love in all the wrong places

    No. She did not want love, or a BF, or marriage. She did not want a relationship. She wanted a good time. She wanted sex. She wanted fun or power or validation or affirmation or acceptance. It’s foolish to think she wanted anything else. Why does she do this? Because she can. Because it requires little effort, no decisions and no commitment.

  433. just as I’m sure there are many shades of grey out there
    ———————————————————–
    ’bout 50

  434. slwerner says:

    Anonymous Reader – ”If Slwerner wishes, I’m sure he can fill you in on some of the details.”

    This was an incident that hit way too close to home for me. The cheating wife was the one who had invited my wife to that church in the first place.

    This not too long after we had gone through some marital issues a ourselves, which had lead me to make some self-improvement efforts (getting back into shape, dressing better, projecting more confidence, etc. Long before I knew anything of “Game”, men’s magazines where providing “Game-like” suggestions for men).

    Most likely due to my own self-improvement, the cheating wife in question actually propositioned me. I was stunned. Her husband was a tall, handsome, and financially successful bank officer (although, in Red Pill-retrospect, otherwise a complete beta who practically worshipped his wife). At that point, being of basically “Blue Pill” influence, I did not understand why she would have been looking around.

    It was a few months after she had hit on me that the wife of another man she did end-up cheating with caught them. She was actually the second married woman at the church who had suggested having an affair with me, to me.

    I wasn’t at the service at which her husband stood up and publicly apologized to her for having been such a bad husband that she would cheat on him. I don’t know if it was something that the pastor had suggested/required of him, or if it was of his own volition; all I can say that I was physically sick to my stomach when I heard about his tearfully groveling apology. Even though heavily Blue Pill medicated, it still seemed to me that the person who had actually sinned against the other should have been the one to confess and apologize. From what I was told, his cheating wife just sat through his apology to her, and offered no (public) response. Others who were there tell me she looked pissed off, perhaps due to the public airing of HER dirty laundry.

    Anyway, upon hearing about what had transpired, my wife simply announced that she would not be going back to that church. I did not understand at first, but she later explained to me that she had sometime earlier become aware of her (then) friends cheating ways – along with a couple of other wives in that church. What she described was something of a “cheating wives club” in which they all took steps to cover for one another while having (multiple) affairs. I wasn’t the only one who had been silent about what I knew about her.

    Afterward, I had long thought that what had been happening at that church was some sort of bizarre anomaly – something so far removed from your average church as to be indicative of nothing of “Churchianity”. As a result, I (we) continued on in our Churchian ways at another nearby church, thinking that we’d never encounter anything like that again.

    The two churches we attended thereafter, while not being of the same salacious caliber, never-the-less also had some instance of infidelity. And that’s where I finally started to notice the “pattern” men who’s been unfaithful were rounding castigated treated as scum. But, it seemed women who’d been the ones cheating had other women “rally around” them, to prayerfully get them through their terrible ordeals. I never heard of another husband apologizing to his wayward wife, but I do know that they were strongly encouraged to forgive their wives, and to try to improve themselves as husbands (at one of those churches, there was a heavy “man as protective cover for wife and children”, with the implication that failures on the part of those he had a duty to protect from the world were thus reflections of his failure in that duty.)

    It all really started to rub me the wrong way. Yet, for years, I continued on in my Churchian Blue Pill-leaning ways. I knew of men who’s wives had divorced them, who truly looked lost and in need of friendship. But, like the other married men in the church, I failed to step up to be such a friend. I never felt that my wife would have had an issue with my interacting with them, but it was quite apparent that many other wives DID NOT want their husbands to interact with those “lepers”.

    Looking back, with Red Pill cleared eyes, I find that I have many regrets owing to my many years of Churchity, and that the evidence was constantly being played out and revealed before me, but I just didn’t (or didn’t want to) see it. Good men being denigrated, women being pedistalized – bad women being pedistalized, the truth of woman as lustful and sinful as men, and the reality and effectiveness (even if unwanted) of what has come to be known as “Game”.

    I suppose that my particular situation to which you referenced is why I continue to this day to be quite sensitive to the issues of infidelity, and the way that Churchianity acts to make bad situations so much worse.

    The emergence of the Manosphere finally allowed me to understand that the things I had experienced and observed were actually quite typical, and finally provided me with that Red Pill I had been needing to tie it all together in my head.

  435. Anonymous Reader says:

    sunshinemary, you are correct. It’s a three-layered defense that churchian women have to deflect any consequences for bad behavior. Here are two:

    1. “Judge not”
    2. “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone”.

    Being judgemental is severely frowned upon in the modern world and way too many churches. Judgementalism is double-plus-ungood. It is close to crimethink. But if someone can get past that hurdle, then the next one generally brings Team Woman in to surround the woman in question: “How can you judge her! Are you perfect? Never made a mistake?” and of course, no man is even close to being perfect enough to pass that hurdle.

    In the last year or so I’ve come to recognize a third defense layer:

    3. “Weaker vessel”.

    If a man, or a group of men, busts through the first layer, “Oh, yeah? Well, I’m judging!” and the second layer “I may not be perfect, but I don’t go around screwing married people!” then the water works get turned on, and suddenly a strong, empowered, “spirit filled” woman turns into a weepy, helpless, “weaker vessel”. The practical uses of this are many, but boil down to one principle:

    It’s All Some Man’s Fault.

    Did she cheat? Well, her husband must have not loved her enough, or been enough like Jesus to lead her properly. Bad Man! Did she push him away from her in bed, hissing “Don’t touch me!” when angry and then cut him off from months on end, just to make sure he got the message? Ditto. Bad Man! Did a college woman get caught riding the carousel? Better have a word with her father – he clearly didn’t raise her right. Bad Man!

    Insert the sound effect of a rolled up newspaper smacking a man on the nose as you wish. And channelling Orwell, imagine life for many men as a hand with a rolled up newspaper, endlessly smacking them on the nose, ears and head, forever.

    That’s what many of us see, in different variations, in various branches of Churchinaity:

    1. “Judge not”
    2. “Let him without sin cast the first stone”
    3. “Weaker vessel. It’s Not Her Fault”.

    None of these apply to men, of course. Men own their wrongdoing. They just happen to own most of women’s wrongdoing as well.

  436. Anonymous Reader says:

    empathologicalism
    ’bout 50

    Snork!

    Grumble. Gotta clean off the keyboard. Good thing I don’t put sugar in my tea…

  437. P Ray says:

    @Anonymous Reader:
    I missed that third one many times in the past, but I’d always had that niggling feeling that the waterworks were there to deflect blame or deny responsibility.
    The weaker vessel idea doesn’t work the moment it can be pointed out that women are equal to men, hence have to take responsibility … or else they’re children, and should have relatively few freedoms.
    That opens up a hilarious can of chattering. :)
    Which lasts until you close the door.

  438. Yes, Empath, that was clever.

    The problem is that the law treats women as equal, but it is arguable that in some ways they are not. Women themselves often seem to have doubts.

  439. sunshinemary says:

    AR wrote, “3. “Weaker vessel”.
    If a man, or a group of men, busts through the first layer, “Oh, yeah? Well, I’m judging!” and the second layer “I may not be perfect, but I don’t go around screwing married people!” then the water works get turned on, and suddenly a strong, empowered, “spirit filled” woman turns into a weepy, helpless, “weaker vessel”. The practical uses of this are many, but boil down to one principle: It’s All Some Man’s Fault. ”

    This “weaker vessel” argument is interesting to me. I don’t *think* I’ve encountered it in real life, but then I am very, very careful about the women I associate with. I looked up 1 Peter 3:7 so that I could read some parallel translations of it. I liked the NASB translation:
    You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.

    I don’t see anything in that verse that implies that a man is at fault when a woman sins. I can’t understand how it gets used that way. In fact, it doesn’t even say that women are weak, only that they are weaker than men. And I have a question about this verse – is weak here referring to morally/spiritually weaker or just physically weaker? If it just means physically weaker, then it really requires some twisting to use it as an excuse for sin; that’s like a woman saying she can’t be held responsible for her sin because she is shorter than her husband.

  440. van Rooinek says:

    A man’s wife cheated on him in a sexual affair. She got caught. As part of their churchian “reconciliation”, he was required to stand up before the entire church, and confess that he had not been a good husband to her & therefore her cheating was his fault – for which he apologized. Obviously her bad behavior did not require her to publicly shame herself.

    Here’s a thought. Step up to the pulpit, take the microphone, and instead of giving a brazenly dishonest eunuchoid “appall-ogy”….. SPEAK THE TRUTH TO THE ASTONISHED CONGREGATION….

    “Pastor Beta wanted me to say blah, blah, blah, but that’s not the truth — I’m not guilty of anything, and I’m not cooperating with a sinful church system that demands I cop to someone else’s crime.. the Church refuses to call out women for their sexual and relational sins…. This day, they are called out in your hearing. Ye have heard it said, that women are naturally relational, and therefore, all relationship problems are by definition, the fault of men. THIS IS A SATANIC LIE. Women sin too. Women sin relationally — indeed, they can be quite effective at it, precisely because they are naturally relational — ALL natural gifts can be perverted. Plainly stated, you all know by now that my wife cheated, and I forgive HER. But I will never forgive THIS WICKED CHURCH for the SIN of trying to shift the blame to me. GOOD BYE”

    What are they gonna do — kick you out?

  441. Sunshinemary, I imagine that St Peter thought that women were weaker in the sense of more easily influenced and led astray. He probably had the sin of Eve in mind. But he also notes that women are heirs to the Kingdom, like men, and deserve respect on that account.

    I believe that women are as capable of committing personal sin as men. Being women they should, in fact, be especially suspicious of their own inclinations, and willing to listen to proper authority, not just their own judgment. But if they fail to do so, this does not excuse their guilt.

  442. sunshinemary says:

    vR – love it! If only some brave soul would do it…it could be the shot that starts a revolution. :)

  443. deti says:

    THe “weaker vessel” argument is as Anon Reader pointed out, always deployed with crying, tears, and wailing. This is done to play on and invoke the innate tendency of men to attempt to shelter, protect and comfort a weeping woman in obvious despair.

  444. GKChesterton says:

    @Anon,

    Not in my experience. Not in the experience of many other men on this site, and on other sites. So you are arguing that I and others should ignore what we see with our own eyes, hear with our own ears, and blindly, without evidence, believe you … because you say so.

    Funny…I believe I’ve called it a real problem and have been careful to point out while it hasn’t hit me directly it is something that should be addressed. But, dear me, I have the reading problem. This is probably the last time in a while that I respond to you anon because you are both smart and insufferably trollish.

    Go ahead, tell him. That’s the micro picture, the macro picture is a 30% divorce rate in the Roman Catholic church, and more annullments granted in the US than in all of the other RC churches on the planet combined.

    Claiming that one person has a problem is different from claiming all people have a problem. Telling Elusive that he didn’t experience what he most certainly did experience would be silly. Note I’ve never done that. What you want to do is take the example and then make a negative claim that is unsupportable. Even if the CC has a divorce rate of 30% it is doing far better than the culture at large. That means _something_ is going right. Is it enough? No, but as a Christian I don’t expect perfection in my time. I only expect a general increase in the Church. So we fight the battle but we don’t wallow in despair.

    They are not called out at all so far as I can tell

    Then you are willfully ignorant. It strikes me that you may be seeking to prove your claim and are willing to overlook where good things happen as “not enough”. In that you bear all the marks of a Donatist.

    You deleted it, apparently deliberately, but I’ll repost it:

    GKChesteron wrote:
    Your conflation of the two is a problem and I’ve gone on the record in numerous places about which I believe is the primary evil.

    I’ve deleted nothing on this site as…well I can’t. Nice false accusation. Real cool. BTW, the primary evil you reference in my quote is feminism. But again, way to twist the words to prove your point which is my overall problem with you. You are a hammer in search of a nail and by golly everything can be nails if you just work hard enough. I’ll leave Dalrock to confirm if I have any authority to remove comments.

    It is obvious, going all the way back to your non-answers regarding murderesses, that you operate from a premise that women are more moral than men, or have less free will / agency than men, or perhaps both. I’m sure you can’t or won’t see this contradiction in your own writing but it glares out like a neon sign to many other men who read your text.

    Sure lets address this. Your comments about murderesses are not useful to the discussion. By far the most common mass killer is a man. Does this make men evil? No. It just makes them more prone to homicidal violence. Does citing a murderous woman given us any insight into general patterns of behavior? No it doesn’t. Again a hammer looking for a nail. I also did publicly condemn her..but alas…nothing will ever be enough for a Donatist.

    As to whether women have less free agency than men, I publicly scream that they do. This is by far the classic position and the argument for why patriarchy works. If I’m wrong, if the sages of the past have something else to say, I’ll gladly hear it.

    If wearing a skimpy dress is the most serious form of female misbehavior you can think of, then you need to read more of this site.

    No, you need to understand what questioning a person about they’re experience means. If I have no problems condemning a dress than it would seem that I would have no problems condemning the worse offenses. You asked about me and I answered. I in no way discounted any other event. I am, as I’ve said before, absolutely sure these other events happen.

    As I have told you before, I know people who are wrestling in their church with the presence of a babymomma who has born at least one and possibly two children out of marriage, as a full member of that church.

    Nope. You are missing it again. In my personal experience which is what your question asked it is a hypothetical. I in no way discount the other events occurring to other people. However, in my case they are hypothetical. You are conflating two different issues to construct a straw man.

    but I’m certain that she’s never given any of her bastards up for adoption, too. As I told you before, the information is given to me in a quiet corner by frustrated members of the church, through gritted teeth, because apparently “Judge not” and “let him who is without sin cast the first stone” are the only to Bible quotes anyone feels are needed

    I don’t think adoption is required. I don’t see why it would be. As to the rest I can answer concretely from my own experience! I have corrected many people on this application of scripture. It ignores the advice in Matt 18 and conflates what amounts to congregational gossip with real concern for the welfare of souls.

    Real. World. Situation. Please. Remember. This. Fact.

    I. Have(,). You. Are. Confusing. Asking. About. Me. With. Asking. About. Others.

    All I have is second hand information, but apparently the church leadership is willing to keep her around in order to help her children – they attend some kind of church-related school, if you recall. Whether there’s been any statement in public by the pastor or leadership I can’t tell.

    And that sounds like a justified pastoral response. The problem arises not from keeping her around but from celebrating her. The celebrations of her must stop, but she can and should be “kept around”.

    I can’t tell if she’s “flaunting” it or not, and that’s a word that is ambiguous: “flaunting” to me might well look like just normal “You Go, Grrl!” modern woman behavior to someone else. I did ask if she had family in the town, and the answer was negative – her family lives somewhere else. Since she appears to be in her 30′s, I doubt that appealing to her father would be very useful anyway.

    I think you’d be shocked how influential family can be in all stages of life. Flaunting it is not ambiguous. I don’t care about “grrrl” power.

    Well, maybe the world isn’t the same as it was when you were growing up, eh? This is the kind of stuff I see, and while it is perhaps an extreme case, it is not unique. Go to any mega-church and I am all but certain that similar situations can be found.

    Again with the conflating of “what would you do” with “what happens in some places”. I also think:
    1.) You have a probably poor picture of what is going on as you are hearing information second hand. As someone who has had much authority in life I really hate arm chair quarterbacks as they generally have not a clue.
    2.) The normative Christian response is not going to be burning someone alive.

    And if it is never applied to a real world situation, then what’s the point? Suppose I know the Heimlich maneuver, but refuse to get out of my chair to apply my knowledge in a situation where someone at the next table is choking on their steak? What good does my theoretical knowledge do for anyone?

    Everything. It need not have any bearing at all on the real world. Now Christianity posits that theology does have real world impact, but the central work of religion is to worship God not to have happy fun times. In fact Christianity supposes that the net effect on the average worshiper in the “real world” will be the opposite of happy fun times. You come close here to teaching a Gospel of Prosperity.

    Given the number of times that you have been challenged with the above real world situation, and punted it, evaded it, avoided it

    What makes you so special that I have to answer you directly at all? Our first interaction was you being snide. An interaction that you’ve continued in every post that I’ve directly engaged you in. Feeding you at all is feeding trollish behavior. You have no interest in any sort of reconciliation. When I do answer you it is always not fast enough. You talk about “shaming language”…your posts are rife with it.

    I’m sure that is true in some places – the richest builder / developer / contractor, or lawyer, or banker, who is the bankroll of a church could do that.

    What kind of monstrous organizations do you belong to where that is the only true answer? Does the layman have no _moral_ authority at all? There’s not a single Maximos the Confessor in the bunch?

    the “solution” to the problem was that the 19 year old daughter & her bastard child moved out of town

    Wait, she was banished? Really? And that wasn’t enough? Look I’m _for_ punishment. I really am. A woman at the office just commented that I was heartless (but lovable!) but if she was banished what more do you want? I mean let’s turn this around. What would you do? I’m not keen on the pastor continuing in active ministry but it may have been decided that as she was 19 she was acting as an adult and we need not, “dispose of King David” as it where. You sound more Donatist all the time.

    You are going to a church. It’s the only one in town of your denomination. You are not a member of the leadership group. What Would You Do?

    Become part of the leadership? In most voluntary organizations it requires very little in the way of work to do so. Heaven knows I’ve done it before and I can do it again. I’m not in the leadership of my current Church but I get volunteered a lot. I’m wise enough to smile and find somewhere else to be.

    That’s reasonable, too. Apparently, in many Protestant churches, the local leadership is pretty heavily in control. If they don’t want to remove the pastor, he ain’t leaving. What Would You Do?

    See above. It really isn’t that hard. I’m wary of the non-liturgical protestant thing because of Sola Scriptura which tends to lead to hard-line opinions and crazy breakups over weird readings. That is, you have no center of moral authority.

    My apologies for not making it clear before that the two examples are from real, genuine, churches, where real, genuine, people are in real unpleasant situations. I’ll strive for greater clarity in the future, when addressing you.

    I’m going to take that as genuine…I’m going to leave my post as is because I wrote it as I read it. If so, I’m more than willing to continue to work through this. Also realize that I was trying to answer your question and not dodge with practical personal examples. The last “addressing you” though has a whiff of sarcasm in it.

    Did any church take a visible stand on her crime? Not to my knowledge. I’ve looked, perhaps I missed one somewhere (I don’t claim infallibility). Is murdering your husband in cold blood “bad behavior”? Yes, I believe even you can agree that is true. And where was, or is, the huge protest from American Churchianty? Why, it isn’t.

    Why should they? It was a miscarriage of justice, but this is tantamount to, “did any church anywhere comment on the OJ Simpson trial! I’ve heard NOTHING“. That is, it has no value at all.

    In closing, I suspect that what stings you the most is the fact that your gynocentric view of women, possibly taught to you in childhood and later on, is being contradicted by reality. Faced with facts that just can’t be squared with “all women just want to be helpers”, etc. you lash out at the bearers of bad news. But you can shoot all the messengers you want, that won’t change reality.

    I’ve never ever been described as gynocentric except by you. I find this darkly fascinating. But yes, I believe at heart women are helpers, which is the Christian perspective, and that when corrupted as they all were in the fall we see behaviors that Game illustrates which is why I find it interesting.

    I’m not lashing out at any “bearers of bad news”. In fact I think I’ve defended Dalrock’s use of the above statistics on other sites as illustrating a major problem. So no, your assault rings hollow. It doesn’t sting me in the slightest.

    Look, I’ll take you at your word regarding what you’ve done as a pastor but you must come to grips with the fact that there’s a bigger world than your niche, and it isn’t at all running in the same way as your little corner does. Dislike the facts all you wish, they won’t change. Being deliberately, willfully blind to the facts won’t help your argument one bit.

    I fully accept that such things do happen. Which is why I’m here. I believe these things should be fought. I hardly “dislike the facts”. The assumption that I do is tedious.

    A man’s wife cheated on him in a sexual affair. She got caught. As part of their churchian “reconciliation”, he was required to stand up before the entire church, and confess that he had not been a good husband to her & therefore her cheating was his fault – for which he apologized. Obviously her bad behavior did not require her to publicly shame herself.

    It is a direct assault on his role as the Head of House. He should have made that clear and public. In fact I’m amazed that more Christian men don’t point out, “you can’t meddle with my family, I’m the priest here!” That the whole charade happened is embarrassing to everyone.

    Softer versions can be found pretty much anywhere: Men’s groups that are heavy on shaming men for bad things they did, women’s groups that are all about affirmations and “building women up”.

    Where you and I will likely differ is that I believe some amount of the first part is ok and very Christian. We should try to modify our faults. The second is the problem.

    Mark Driscoll’s “Mars Hill” church, Sheila Gregoire, et al and the gynocentrism is quite easy to see, for those who have the right pair of glasses. And it appears you need a new prescription; your eyes keep missing some things that ar right in front of you.

    And I’ve commented on those threads and even linked them to some very influential people. Amazingly I’m not blind, but again proving myself every few minutes to your endless shit tests is tedious. That being said I’m not super fond of nuking Gregoire from orbit. Its clear that she still has hefty problems but has made significant progress from her college positions. We shouldn’t be too keen on obliterating people making progress.

    @Empath,
    GKC suffers from the illusion that afflicts all white knights, though his is a slightly different take on that knighthood.

    If not seeing PUA’s as vile is being a white knight then I shall wear the armor in good grace always.

    That being said I agree with the rest, the Church Universal has slid into deifying women.

    @Sunshine,
    Wow, thanks for sharing those examples. That really clarified for me some of the criticism that has been leveled against the church. I’m starting to understand the treachery. It’s like Christians are reading John 8:10-11 (Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”) but stop reading after the word “declared”.

    A very common problem.

    @Slwerner,

    Might I suggest that a good indication of how bad things can get is how willingly patriarchy is accepted. Where there are _real_ patriarchs alphas will get shredded (they are competition) and sluts will be tamed because the women can’t form any political parties.

    @Sunshine,
    I don’t see anything in that verse that implies that a man is at fault when a woman sins. I can’t understand how it gets used that way. In fact, it doesn’t even say that women are weak, only that they are weaker than men. And I have a question about this verse – is weak here referring to morally/spiritually weaker or just physically weaker? If it just means physically weaker, then it really requires some twisting to use it as an excuse for sin; that’s like a woman saying she can’t be held responsible for her sin because she is shorter than her husband.

    Traditionally it was seen as weaker in every category. Consider your temper during menstruation. You become psychologically unbalanced in a way that men just do not. However, this is not an excuse for immoral behavior. It is merely, as you point out, an indication of overall weakness in comparison to men. Consider for example that men are “weak” in every category in comparison to angels however we can not be therefore excused from sin carte blanche.

    @van,
    What are they gonna do — kick you out?

    The only modification I’d make is make it very clear that I _have familial authority_. That is, not only am I being asked to lie, I’m being asked to “bury my talents”.

  445. GKChesterton says:

    @Dalrock,

    Sorry I blew over your post in the heat of the moment…
    What I think you are disregarding is that the women are making a deliberate decision to postpone marriage and play the field. These aren’t nuns caught at a moment of weakness. They made the lifestyle choice long ago. The only question is which men they are going to fornicate with. You are still aiding and abetting their rationalization hamster.

    I totally agree that women do this. However, the sub-topic in question was active male seducers. Where that happens the man holds special responsibility. Otherwise I agree. I also agree that I could be abetting a hamster. But I believe that we must be willing and active in our punishment of both even where one party can’t be actively pursued for the reasons you have stated in the past.

  446. sunshinemary says:

    DC
    Sunshinemary, I imagine that St Peter thought that women were weaker in the sense of more easily influenced and led astray. He probably had the sin of Eve in mind. But he also notes that women are heirs to the Kingdom, like men, and deserve respect on that account.

    Deti
    THe “weaker vessel” argument is as Anon Reader pointed out, always deployed with crying, tears, and wailing. This is done to play on and invoke the innate tendency of men to attempt to shelter, protect and comfort a weeping woman in obvious despair.

    AR
    Traditionally it was seen as weaker in every category. Consider your temper during menstruation. You become psychologically unbalanced in a way that men just do not. However, this is not an excuse for immoral behavior. It is merely, as you point out, an indication of overall weakness in comparison to men. Consider for example that men are “weak” in every category in comparison to angels however we can not be therefore excused from sin carte blanche.

    _____________________________________________________________________________

    I see what you are saying about the meaning of the verse; still I cannot imagine how it gets used by a woman, particularly in a church setting, to excuse her sin And regarding using the weaker vessel argument to manipulate a man…why? Tears alone work best for that. I have used them myself on occasion in the attempt to wiggle out from under consequences when my husband is calling me out on something. But if I said to him, “But I am the weaker vessel, I could not help it!” he would laugh in my face. And probably make a crude sexual suggestion as well.

  447. sunshinemary, it is a warning not an excuse. Women are to be especially on guard and to follow trustworthy men in authority.

  448. sunshineintokyo says:

    What are relationships about? I think I might be losing touch with the reality of actual relationships as I haven’t been in one in nearly 3 years. It’s all too abstract and biased now.

  449. Dalrock says:

    @GKChesterton

    Sorry I blew over your post in the heat of the moment…

    No apology needed. It is an old thread.

    What I think you are disregarding is that the women are making a deliberate decision to postpone marriage and play the field. These aren’t nuns caught at a moment of weakness. They made the lifestyle choice long ago. The only question is which men they are going to fornicate with. You are still aiding and abetting their rationalization hamster.

    I totally agree that women do this. However, the sub-topic in question was active male seducers. Where that happens the man holds special responsibility.

    I think you still have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going on. Imagine a group of hookers going out to make their rounds. They are competing for the johns, to get the least frightening ones and the ones who will pay the best. They are in essence hoping to seduce the johns, either to get the best ones, or to have any business at all. At the same time, the johns are competing for the best hookers. They are looking to seduce the best hookers to pick them, using money to accomplish this.

    This is what is going on today, except the hookers are HUSies and don’t work for cash. They work for alpha. They get alpha in the form of alpha attention and (even better) alpha sex. So they are competing with the other HUSies for the men who have the alpha. The johns are the men, and instead of competing using money they do so using alpha. Some men have natural alpha (the born salesman), or positional alpha (rockstar), others have to work to achieve it (game). Each side is seducing the other, and both sides are quite happy about being seduced.

  450. Anonymous Reader says:

    Well, I’ve put this off long enough. I’ll try to keep this short, and point out the glaring flaws in the text of “GKChesterton”.

    I wrote, regarding women and their bad behavior:
    They are not called out at all so far as I can tell

    GKChesterton:
    Then you are willfully ignorant. It strikes me that you may be seeking to prove your claim and are willing to overlook where good things happen as “not enough”. In that you bear all the marks of a Donatist.

    Your theological navel gazing is of no interest. Show me where women’s bad behavior is being called out. Cite statements by church leaders.

    You deleted it, apparently deliberately, but I’ll repost it:

    GKChesteron wrote:
    Your conflation of the two is a problem and I’ve gone on the record in numerous places about which I believe is the primary evil.

    GKChesterton:
    I’ve deleted nothing on this site as…well I can’t. Nice false accusation. Real cool.

    My error for failing to be sufficiently accurate. You removed from your response the text in question. You used any of several software tools, such as “delete” to excise the text in question from your response. You chose to take away the text in question from your response. You marked and erased the text in question from your response.

    BTW, the primary evil you reference in my quote is feminism.

    You claim to be willing to criticize both PUA’s and sluts. But the evidence shows you are one sided in your criticism of sexual promiscuity and other bad behavior. That is the point.

    But again, way to twist the words to prove your point which is my overall problem with you. You are a hammer in search of a nail and by golly everything can be nails if you just work hard enough. I’ll leave Dalrock to confirm if I have any authority to remove comments.

    Your main problem with me is I see through your smokescreen, and note how you are willling to pander to women.

    I wrote:
    It is obvious, going all the way back to your non-answers regarding murderesses, that you operate from a premise that women are more moral than men, or have less free will / agency than men, or perhaps both. I’m sure you can’t or won’t see this contradiction in your own writing but it glares out like a neon sign to many other men who read your text.

    GKChesterton:
    Sure lets address this. Your comments about murderesses are not useful to the discussion.

    Yes, it is. Because you cannot easily bring yourself to criticize a woman who murders her own children, it is certain that getting you to criticize a woman for lesser bad behavior, such as adultery, is going to be even more difficult. This, in turn, highlights the gynocentric point of view that you operate from – a point of view I explicated just above.

    By far the most common mass killer is a man.

    Irrelevant.

    Does this make men evil? No. It just makes them more prone to homicidal violence.

    Irrelevant.,

    Does citing a murderous woman given us any insight into general patterns of behavior?

    Yes, it proves that you are very, very reluctant to criticize any woman, no matter what she does. You are gynocentric.

    No it doesn’t. Again a hammer looking for a nail. I also did publicly condemn her..but alas…nothing will ever be enough for a Donatist.

    Once again evading the point – it took multiple demands before you could bring yourself to say one word about a woman who murdered her own children. So how much more effort would it take to get you to criticize, say, a woman who cuckolded her husband? Or “merely” divorced him for a frivolous reason? You are gynocentric.

    As to whether women have less free agency than men, I publicly scream that they do.

    You say that, but then you turn and refuse to criticize them for bad behavior. Therefore, your actions contradict your words.

    This is by far the classic position and the argument for why patriarchy works. If I’m wrong, if the sages of the past have something else to say, I’ll gladly hear it.

    Your gynocentric, “no such thing as a bad woman”, approach would disgust a real patriarch.

    I wrote:
    If wearing a skimpy dress is the most serious form of female misbehavior you can think of, then you need to read more of this site.

    GKChesterton:
    No, you need to understand what questioning a person about they’re experience means. If I have no problems condemning a dress than it would seem that I would have no problems condemning the worse offenses.

    Yet there is no evidence to support this claim. There is, however, evidence contradicting it: your extreme reluctance to criticize women who murder. Your continued “yes, but” discussion of women’s bad behavior in the modern Churchianity connection.

    I wrote:
    As I have told you before, I know people who are wrestling in their church with the presence of a babymomma who has born at least one and possibly two children out of marriage, as a full member of that church.

    GKChesterton:
    Nope. You are missing it again. In my personal experience which is what your question asked it is a hypothetical. I in no way discount the other events occurring to other people. However, in my case they are hypothetical. You are conflating two different issues to construct a straw man.

    Once again, you prove my point. You won’t criticize a sexually promiscuous woman.
    Therefore, you are willing to put PUA’s in stocks, but not babymommas. Your gynocentric mindset is once again made obvious.

    I wrote:
    but I’m certain that she’s never given any of her bastards up for adoption, too. As I told you before, the information is given to me in a quiet corner by frustrated members of the church, through gritted teeth, because apparently “Judge not” and “let him who is without sin cast the first stone” are the only to Bible quotes anyone feels are needed

    GKChesterton:
    I don’t think adoption is required. I don’t see why it would be. As to the rest I can answer concretely from my own experience! I have corrected many people on this application of scripture. It ignores the advice in Matt 18 and conflates what amounts to congregational gossip with real concern for the welfare of souls.

    So you would not shame that slut. Thanks for making that clear.
    I wrote:
    All I have is second hand information, but apparently the church leadership is willing to keep her around in order to help her children – they attend some kind of church-related school, if you recall. Whether there’s been any statement in public by the pastor or leadership I can’t tell.

    GKChesterton:
    And that sounds like a justified pastoral response. The problem arises not from keeping her around but from celebrating her. The celebrations of her must stop, but she can and should be “kept around”.

    Exactly. Because she’s teaching the lesson that women can bear children, can raise children, can get lots of help raising children, and they do not need to marry to do so. That feminist, “don’t need no man”, lesson is very important in the modern world.

    This woman is “married” to the state, and she’s “married” to that church. Every man in the church, married or not, who is putting money into the collection plate is helping to support her. She is free to collect sperm when she wants from any random badboy Alpha male, and then come to church and have all the good Churchian betas provide support. This church is a micro example of the larger society, and also of many marriages – if the church is keeping her around because of fear that her children would come to some harm otherwise, then she’s using the children as hostages to keep the church supporting her.

    You say that you would put sluts in stocks. But when an opportunity to shame a slut arises, you won’t do it.

    I wrote:
    I can’t tell if she’s “flaunting” it or not, and that’s a word that is ambiguous: “flaunting” to me might well look like just normal “You Go, Grrl!” modern woman behavior to someone else. I did ask if she had family in the town, and the answer was negative – her family lives somewhere else. Since she appears to be in her 30′s, I doubt that appealing to her father would be very useful anyway.

    I think you’d be shocked how influential family can be in all stages of life. Flaunting it is not ambiguous. I don’t care about “grrrl” power.

    But you do care about women. You care about them more than anything. More than anything.

    I wrote:
    Well, maybe the world isn’t the same as it was when you were growing up, eh? This is the kind of stuff I see, and while it is perhaps an extreme case, it is not unique. Go to any mega-church and I am all but certain that similar situations can be found.

    GKChesterton:
    Again with the conflating of “what would you do” with “what happens in some places”. I also think:
    1.) You have a probably poor picture of what is going on as you are hearing information second hand. As someone who has had much authority in life I really hate arm chair quarterbacks as they generally have not a clue.
    2.) The normative Christian response is not going to be burning someone alive.

    Your normative Churchian response is to do anything to avoid making a woman unhaaaapy.
    You claim that you would shame sluts, but you would keep a babymomma around and tolerate her ongoing fornication, no matter what. That much is clear. So obviously you would not have a problem with a church that was 10%, or 20%, or 50% babymommas, right? You’d storm all over the place about those bad men who knocked them up, of course.

    (I’ll ignore the obvious bait about churches burning people alive. We can discuss the Inquistion and other fun topics some other time.)

    I wrote:
    And if it is never applied to a real world situation, then what’s the point? Suppose I know the Heimlich maneuver, but refuse to get out of my chair to apply my knowledge in a situation where someone at the next table is choking on their steak? What good does my theoretical knowledge do for anyone?

    GKChesterton replied:
    Everything. It need not have any bearing at all on the real world. Now Christianity posits that theology does have real world impact, but the central work of religion is to worship God not to have happy fun times. In fact Christianity supposes that the net effect on the average worshiper in the “real world” will be the opposite of happy fun times. You come close here to teaching a Gospel of Prosperity.

    Totally missing the point. Look, you claim all this knowledge on morals and ethics. You claim to be ready to put sluts in stocks. I give you a basic problem: a promiscuous woman who wont’ stop slutting around, and ask what you would do? You throw up your hands and avoid answering over and over and over again. Now, we finally have come to the answer –

    NOTHING. You would do nothing to shame a slut who kept birthing bastards and expecting other people to pay for raising them.

    I wrote:
    Given the number of times that you have been challenged with the above real world situation, and punted it, evaded it, avoided it

    GKChesterton
    What makes you so special that I have to answer you directly at all?

    Why, nothing, nothing at all. You are certainly free to peddle your Gospel of The Holy Vagina all you want and ignore my fact-based criticisms. I’ll just keep stating the facts: you won’t shame sluts.

    Our first interaction was you being snide. An interaction that you’ve continued in every post that I’ve directly engaged you in. Feeding you at all is feeding trollish behavior. You have no interest in any sort of reconciliation. When I do answer you it is always not fast enough. You talk about “shaming language”…your posts are rife with it.

    You don’t know what shaming language is. But one thing is true: you will not shame sluts. Period. You are gynocentric.

    I wrote:
    I’m sure that is true in some places – the richest builder / developer / contractor, or lawyer, or banker, who is the bankroll of a church could do that.

    GKChesterton:
    What kind of monstrous organizations do you belong to where that is the only true answer? Does the layman have no _moral_ authority at all? There’s not a single Maximos the Confessor in the bunch?

    Once again, you show that you don’t bother to read carefully. I’m reporting what I have seen, and what i have been told by trustworthy men from various churches. I’m observing facts that I’ve seen in a variety of places. Do try to keep up?

    I wrote, regarding the daughter of a pastor who got pregnant while not married and living at home:
    the “solution” to the problem was that the 19 year old daughter & her bastard child moved out of town

    GKChesterton>
    Wait, she was banished?

    Where did I say that? The word “banished” has a meaning, and I doubt it applies here.

    Really? And that wasn’t enough? Look I’m _for_ punishment. I really am.

    There is no evidence to support the notion that you want any woman every punished for any thing.

    But note what happened: I asked GKChesterton how he would shame this particular slut – a 19 year old woman, living with her parents,who got pregnant outside of marriage. I asked this because GKChesterton claimed he’d put sluts in stocks. And what has the response been?

    Nothing. No response. The conclusion is obvious: if GKChesterton’s pastor or priest had a daughter who got pregnant outside of marriage, he’d surely storm around the father’s office. He’d surely want the man who impregnated her punished.

    But he would not shame that slut.

    A woman at the office just commented that I was heartless (but lovable!)

    Who cares?

    but if she was banished what more do you want?

    I didn’t say she was banished. You made that up inside your head.

    What I want is for you to tell me how you would shame that slut but it has become obvious that you will not shame any slut.

    I mean let’s turn this around. What would you do? I’m not keen on the pastor continuing in active ministry but it may have been decided that as she was 19 she was acting as an adult and we need not, “dispose of King David” as it where. You sound more Donatist all the time.

    What I would do is not important. I’m not the puffed up, arrogant, pompous windbag who claimed “I’d put PUA’s and sluts in stocks!”, but who has shown over and over again that he will do anything to avoid shaming a slut.

    I wrote:
    You are going to a church. It’s the only one in town of your denomination. You are not a member of the leadership group. What Would You Do?

    Become part of the leadership? In most voluntary organizations it requires very little in the way of work to do so. Heaven knows I’ve done it before and I can do it again. I’m not in the leadership of my current Church but I get volunteered a lot. I’m wise enough to smile and find somewhere else to be.

    How would that shame the slut? How would you shame the slut?

    I wrote:
    That’s reasonable, too. Apparently, in many Protestant churches, the local leadership is pretty heavily in control. If they don’t want to remove the pastor, he ain’t leaving. What Would You Do?

    GKChesterton:
    See above. It really isn’t that hard. I’m wary of the non-liturgical protestant thing because of Sola Scriptura which tends to lead to hard-line opinions and crazy breakups over weird readings. That is, you have no center of moral authority.

    Translation: I, GKChesterton, refuse to shame any slut.

    I wrote:
    My apologies for not making it clear before that the two examples are from real, genuine, churches, where real, genuine, people are in real unpleasant situations. I’ll strive for greater clarity in the future, when addressing you.

    GKChesterton:
    I’m going to take that as genuine…I’m going to leave my post as is because I wrote it as I read it. If so, I’m more than willing to continue to work through this. Also realize that I was trying to answer your question and not dodge with practical personal examples. The last “addressing you” though has a whiff of sarcasm in it.

    How would you shame the sluts in question?

    I wrote about Mary Winkler:
    Did any church take a visible stand on her crime? Not to my knowledge. I’ve looked, perhaps I missed one somewhere (I don’t claim infallibility). Is murdering your husband in cold blood “bad behavior”? Yes, I believe even you can agree that is true. And where was, or is, the huge protest from American Churchianty? Why, it isn’t.

    GKChesterton:
    Why should they?

    Because it was very bad behavior by a woman. You claimed that women’s bad behavior is “called out”, it is condemned. Mary Winkler shot her husband in the back with a shotgun, dropping him in their bedroom. He did not die immediately. She left the room, as he bled to death on/next to The Marriage Bed, but she did take the effort to unplug their land line telephone on the way out the door to ensure he could not call for help.

    Can we agree this is very bad? Now, you claimed that women’s bad behavior is “called out”, it is challenged, criticized, etc. Yet that did not happen.

    American Churchianity can’t criticize a woman who murders her pastor husband. Yet you say the churches “call out” women on their bad behavior. Do you see the contradiction?

    It was a miscarriage of justice, but this is tantamount to, “did any church anywhere comment on the OJ Simpson trial! I’ve heard NOTHING“. That is, it has no value at all.

    Why do so many tradcons argue like women? “Men Do Murder Too” is not relevant. The issue is “bad behavior not criticized by churchianity”. Mary Winkler’s case is evidence, and that’s that.

    I wrote;
    In closing, I suspect that what stings you the most is the fact that your gynocentric view of women, possibly taught to you in childhood and later on, is being contradicted by reality. Faced with facts that just can’t be squared with “all women just want to be helpers”, etc. you lash out at the bearers of bad news. But you can shoot all the messengers you want, that won’t change reality.

    GKChesteron:
    I’ve never ever been described as gynocentric except by you. I find this darkly fascinating.

    1. Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy.
    2. The truth can be fascinating.

    But yes, I believe at heart women are helpers, which is the Christian perspective, and that when corrupted as they all were in the fall we see behaviors that Game illustrates which is why I find it interesting.

    I’ll address this error in a different posting.

    CKChesterton:
    I’m not lashing out at any “bearers of bad news”.

    You really don’t like men who criticize women.

    In fact I think I’ve defended Dalrock’s use of the above statistics on other sites as illustrating a major problem. So no, your assault rings hollow. It doesn’t sting me in the slightest.

    Then where does the anger come from?

    I wrote:
    Look, I’ll take you at your word regarding what you’ve done as a pastor but you must come to grips with the fact that there’s a bigger world than your niche, and it isn’t at all running in the same way as your little corner does. Dislike the facts all you wish, they won’t change. Being deliberately, willfully blind to the facts won’t help your argument one bit.

    I fully accept that such things do happen. Which is why I’m here. I believe these things should be fought. I hardly “dislike the facts”. The assumption that I do is tedious.

    But you do dislike the facts. You have plenty of energy to attack men, and none to criticize women, for bad behavior. And pointing out facts arouses your ire to the point that you’ll attack the messengers…but not deal with the message.

    I wrote:
    A man’s wife cheated on him in a sexual affair. She got caught. As part of their churchian “reconciliation”, he was required to stand up before the entire church, and confess that he had not been a good husband to her & therefore her cheating was his fault – for which he apologized. Obviously her bad behavior did not require her to publicly shame herself.

    GKChesterton:
    It is a direct assault on his role as the Head of House. He should have made that clear and public. In fact I’m amazed that more Christian men don’t point out, “you can’t meddle with my family, I’m the priest here!” That the whole charade happened is embarrassing to everyone.

    But what about her adultery? Why can’t you bring yourself to criticize that, hmm?

    I wrote:
    <i.Softer versions can be found pretty much anywhere: Men’s groups that are heavy on shaming men for bad things they did, women’s groups that are all about affirmations and “building women up”.

    GKChesterton:
    Where you and I will likely differ is that I believe some amount of the first part is ok and very Christian. We should try to modify our faults. The second is the problem.

    Where you and I differ is on the issue of bad behavior by women, and what should be done about it. Your answer boils down to “Women can’t do bad things because they are helpers” and “nothing”.

    I wrote;
    Mark Driscoll’s “Mars Hill” church, Sheila Gregoire, et al and the gynocentrism is quite easy to see, for those who have the right pair of glasses. And it appears you need a new prescription; your eyes keep missing some things that ar right in front of you.

    And I’ve commented on those threads and even linked them to some very influential people. Amazingly I’m not blind, but again proving myself every few minutes to your endless shit tests is tedious.

    Your comments are milktoast, and you don’t know what a shit test it.

    That being said I’m not super fond of nuking Gregoire from orbit. Its clear that she still has hefty problems but has made significant progress from her college positions. We shouldn’t be too keen on obliterating people making progress.

    She’s teaching that husbands should submit to their wives. That’s what you like about her, now isn’t it?

    To recap: GKChesterton will not shame a babymomma. A promiscuous, slutty woman who gets pregnant multiple times with different men & never marries any of them is to be kept in the church, protected from any effects of her actions, and generally cherished…never, ever shamed. A young woman who is under the care of her preacher father who gets pregnant outside of marriage similarly should not be shamed.

    Therefore, GKChesterton’s claim that he would shame sluts is false. He will not do that. He is gynocentric, holding women as more important than anything or anyone else.

    GKChesterton would rather see civilization crumble, than shame a promiscuous woman, thereby making her unhaaaapy.

  451. Anonymous Reader says:

    GKChesterton claims that women are “natural helpers”. This is a testable claim. Let us examine.

    “Natural” means such things as “inherent”, “inborn”, “integral” and so forth. There are people who are natural swimmers – put them in water even at an early age and they’ll chug around, head up. Others are not, put them in water without instruction and they sink like a rock. Some people have natural perfect pitch, some people are born as naturally fast sprinters, and so forth and so on.

    If women are natural helpers, then it doesn’t matter how they are raised. Unlike stinky boys, who devolve to “Lord of the Flies” without a great deal of guidance, natural helpers should be helpful no matter what. And since this quality is inherent, it should be displayed in female humans at all stages of life.

    Exhibit A: A whole lot of modern women, who are selfish, greedy, materialistic narcissists.
    Exhibit B: Any early teenaged girl, who needs correction, supervision and oversight to get anything helpful around the house started, let alone completed.
    Exhibit C: Any two year old girl.

    Conclusion: GKChesterton’s claim does not match observed reality. Given a choice between believing GKChesterton’s gynosupremacist fantasy, and observed reality, I pick reality.

    The reality is simple: humans are selfish, greedy, grasping, conniving, thieving critters who want what they want when they want it. They must be constantly corrected from the time they can walk in order to produce right behavior. No human is born a helper, that is learned behavior. Absent consistent, firm, training, female humans become selfish, greedy, materialistic narcissists – see Exhibit A.

    Give up the fantasy, GKChesterton. Stop kneeling before the pedestal of women. Accept their human reality.

  452. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sunshinemary, I’m sure you know how these selective quotes work. The person or persons using them never provide any reference, they just trot them out – like something in a fortune cookie.
    So any judgement that some woman is doing anything wrong is met with “Judge not”. Any suggestion that women’s bad behavior should be criticized verbally – never mind any real, physical consequences – is met with “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone”.

    This can be seen in action at Christianforums.net, and in many churches in any community. Ditto the whole “weaker vessel” scam; it’s a way to evade any responsibility for a woman’s words or actions.

    Perhaps in a few years, gynocentric churches can do away with those crosses. Replace them with statues of Eve. On a tall, tall pedestal, of course…

  453. Anonymous Reader says:

    One last postscript: GKChesterton, I have never badgered you or harassed you to reply. That is another false statement of yours. Take all the time you like, if you wish to reply at all. This is an old thread and you may never see it. Or you may see it and not feel up to a reply. It doesn’t matter to me.

    What matters to me in so far as this blog goes is simple: opposing gynosupremacism and gynocentrism. Opposing the idea that women are the center of civilization, and that all of humanity exists solely to make them happy. Opposing the idea that men are mere walking wallets, beasts of burden, and possibly sperm donors for women and nothing more. These ideas are destroying civilization around us. The 40% birth rate to unmarried women is a direct result of these ideas. The divorce rate is a direct result of these ideas. The declining status of young men is a direct result of these ideas. These ideas are poison.

    The gynocentric and gynosupremacy views take many forms. One of them is called “feminism”. But that’s just one head of the hydra. Society in the industrialized world is shot through with gynocentricity, and gynosupremacy, and that specifically includes churches. Those churches that exist primarily as social clubs, devoted to the happiness of the membership, are saturated in it. There are plenty of “conservatives”, both social and traditional, who come from such churchianity backgrounds. They are even more dangerous than feminists, because they talk “patriarchy” and walk “matriarchy”. They are in reality just as feminist as any member of NOW, and they have been huge help to feminism for decades. I oppose these feminists-in-traditionalist-clothing just as much, if not more, than open feminists, because they do more damage now than feminists do.

    In my opinion, you are one of these people.

    Your purpose here appears to be to attack men, to defend all women no matter what they do, and to generally sidetrack any serious discussion. So take all the time you want…there’s no hurry.

  454. Chachi says:

    “Either way this leaves the question; why would men want to sign up for the role of celibate boyfriend? This is a role which requires the man to be exclusive to the woman without receiving sex or a promise of marriage, and it isn’t even biblical.”

    The only men who would want this are those who belong to a religion or culture which forbids premarital sex, or asexual men or men with low libidos. Don’t assume that these men will automatically want to marry their celibate girlfriends either. After dating for a while he may conclude that she’s not “the one” for reasons of incompatibility or any number of reasons. You seem to assume that celibate guys want to marry the first girl to give them the time of day. Men have standards too, you know.

  455. HeligKo says:

    The more that I think about this, I find it nuts. The celibate boyfriend doesn’t make sense. I lived in a culture that supports this before I got married too. I think that there is a natural progression that will happen, since we are stuck with dating culture. The progression is as follows. Men will date, and as they date women they will cross them off the list of potential mates. As one hangs on without falling off the list, he needs to evaluate her as wife material, and her do the same for him as husband material. If they reach the conclusion that they are wanting to pursue marriage, then an engagement will proclaim the exclusive nature of their relationship. If neither wants to get married, then dating in this scenario doesn’t make any sense. Exclusivity in dating only makes sense in a secular sense when sex is involved. What is happening is these couples are swapping body fluids in some form or another, even if it is just heavy kissing, and so are toying with the idea of sex even if they don’t cross the line before marriage, and don’t recognize that is what they are doing. I have seen a few times that the best afrodisiac for a man to use is his own saliva. There is a lot of stuff in there including testosterone and pheromones that begin to build the pair bond that is created from sex.

  456. robert erwine says:

    I’ll pick celebrate because you never know what you might catch ! women are just as big lairs as men .. maybe better ones

  457. oogenhand says:

    Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
    Many women would try to turn nearly everybody into a celibate boyfriend. But that is not a genetically stable strategy over the whole population.

  458. Pingback: Dalrock: Deceptive Hypocrite, Bore & Apostate | Eradica

  459. Pingback: How should women respond to men withdrawing from courtship? | Dalrock

  460. Pingback: Courting the lifelong virgin c*ck tease. | Sunshine Mary

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