She’s the victim

Commenter Feminist Hater posted a link to a recent Daily Mail article:
Half of women delay starting a family because they don’t want to give up their freedom.  What struck me the most were the comments, especially this one by belblac:

I was scared I would not meet Mr Right and have children so I foolishly married someone I did not love and was ultimately unhappy with…the trade off? my two beautiful son’s who I love totally. Would I do the same again? Yes, because I would not have missed my two son’s for the world. I guess sperm donation would or could have been an option but it was not widely available back then…and I do think, despite how I felt about my ex husband, that my son’s benefited from having two parents during their growing up years. I just wish I could have had both my son’s and an ‘happy ever after’ marriage with their Father…that would have been so nice.

Commenter JJ has her own explanation for the problem.  It is the alphas who are focusing on younger, more attractive, and fertile women who prevent aging career gals from becoming mothers:

This is not helped by men like my attractive, thirty-something male work colleague who won’t go out with women over thirty because they want babies. Hé doesn’t want to be ‘tied down’. I get a bit fed up with women being blamed for not having babies at the medically approved time. Men are involved too.

I think what she was trying to say is man up and marry those sluts.

Commenter Big Mama Mia explained that the problem is women are afraid of being gamed by the system like belblac was:

Maybe its the fear of being left holding the baby. So many woman are the sole parent. That alone is enough to remain childless. Not so bad if you have good people in your life and lots of cash.

To this commenter Completely Average replied:

In the UK, women initiate divorce 70% of the time. So 70% of women who are the sole parent made the choice to be the sole parent. ————————– If you’re afraid of being alone there is a simple solution, stop leaving your man.

Commenter Tifa Lockheart took issue with this, explaining that there is no such thing as frivolous divorce.

You could ask yourself why that 70% filed for divorce. Surely that would be a more telling statistic on the break up of marriages? Or are you suggesting that either a man or a woman should stay with a drunken, abusive or adulterous partner? The numbers that file tell us nothing other than they had a reason to file, they don’t say why & therefore they are of no importance. Unless you’re saying that this 70% of women filed for divorce because it was fun in some way?

The system is designed to be gamed the way belblac describes.  I challenge anyone who disagrees to point out what laws are in place to prevent any woman who wants from marrying a man she doesn’t love, using him for status, conception, and early child rearing, and then kicking him out of the home while retaining a large portion of his assets and income?

There is nothing preventing this.  It is the system functioning as designed.  Yet, there is near perfect denial of this, and like belblac above the women who run the scam themselves quite often see themselves as the victim.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Aging Feminists, Child Custody, Denial, Rationalization Hamster. Bookmark the permalink.

312 Responses to She’s the victim

  1. deti says:

    “Completely Average” responded to Tifa’s query about why women were filing 70% of the divorces:

    “That’s not hard to figure out. Women are stupid and make really bad relationship choices that they regret later. They usually make these bad choices because they are attracted to the “bad boy” persona. Have you ever heard the expression “nice guys finish last”. That’s why 70% of women end up divorced, because for some really stupid reason you really enjoy being with horrible men.”

    I wouldn’t necessarily say “horrible men”. It’s just that most women enjoy being with men who won’t marry them and who make horrible husbands.

    And it’s not “for some really stupid reason”. It’s because the I-don’t -give-a-shit, bad boy, thug persona turns women on, and the “nice guy” doesn’t.

  2. Kieran says:

    To Dalrock and the other Christian manosphere experts:

    I am a Christian man, Australian, 24, with strong convictions and the desire to have a family in the near future. I am honest and have a gentle spirit, and I will go out of my way to help anyone in need; that said, I am not a pushover and I do not allow others to manipulate me (in other words, “s*** tests” are not effective — not to say I handle them in a suave way). I have an innate understanding of how women think; I was raised by women for most of my childhood, and a majority of my friends are women. For the most part though, as you might already have concluded, I am ridiculously “beta”; I have cultivated, often deliberately, my sense of humour, my love for children, my artistic creativity, and my conversance with topics like childbirth, weddings, child-rearing, etc.

    While I have asked out a number of girls in the past 5 or so years, each of them has rejected me with stupid excuses like “you’re just not my type” (I’m probably slightly better looking than the average guy so it’s not just that.) The one or two girls who didn’t reject me straight-out began to avoid seeing me after a few weeks when it was clear they had to decide if they were going to officially “go out” or not; in other words, I’ve never kissed a girl nor had someone I could call a girlfriend. I have considered Paul’s suggestion that it is better to not marry, but I have a considerable fire in my loins, so to speak, and it is an ongoing challenge to contain it, so I think Paul would have advised me to marry.

    I stumbled across this blog last week, and decided to take the proverbial “red pill”. Well, over one week and hundreds of articles later, I am still looking for the bottom of the rabbit-hole. While I had already held a lot of the views expressed on this blog and others, many of the things I had thought previously have been deconstructed or turned on their heads, and I am now trying to rebuild a picture closer to the truth. Probably the most profound change in my thinking has been a realisation that, despite my continuing best effort to be a good husband and father, and despite the initially sincere commitment of a faithful woman, there is still a very real chance that it would all end in tears and pain.

    What is your advice to someone in my position? There seems to be a profound dearth of young Christian women prepared to give priority to a husband and a family. My church is small and there’s nobody suitable there, yet I am not prepared to seek another church at this point because God has confirmed that he wants me to continue serving this church.

    In short, what am I doing wrong? Do I need to work on my “game”? I am hesitant to base my entire thinking about sexuality on nebulous reproductive psychology, because it does not seem Biblical. Rather, what I see in the world is women seeking to have rule over men by force (Gen 3:16), and rebellion against respecting men or accepting proper reciprocated respect from them (and in the process, also failure to respect themselves in a godly way too). At the same time, Jesus showed us that real authority and headship invovles submission and humility (thought not in a pushover kind of way).

    Of single Christian girls I know through other circles, I tend to see two types:
    1) Young (less than ~21), intimidated by direct advances and honest communication, squeamish about the concept of sexual expression within marriage, convinced of a future of Disney-princess-imaginings, juvenile in many ways, and insecure from the societal pressure to conform to worldly standards of beauty, career seeking and sexual empowerment.
    2) Older (mid to late 20s), burnt from their past experiences with guys, more amenable to a direct approach, but have either been on the carousel or have distracted themselves from that temptation by focusing on their career paths and becoming fiercely independent.

    It’s hard to know which of these options is better. As I grow older, I am finding the first type to be overly superficial in terms of their thoughts and feelings, and I do not have the time to waste on “playing it cool” and their insecurity plays. At the same time, I realise that the second type are really hard to pin down and keep. Naturally, I’d prefer to be the virgin husband of a virgin bride, but at the same time, despite the greater risk it proffers, I feel it would be wrong to break off a relationship _solely_ because I found out a girl was not a virgin; there would need to be better reasons. As a Christian, I feel that if Christ had been fussy in picking his bride then we as the church would have been dumped at a single glance. The church has failed to live up to any standard of chastity, yet he took us and purified us to present us as a radiant bride. Jesus was not the “alpha” king that the Jews had expected Furthermore, I am guilty as charged when it comes to Jesus’ statement that lust is tantamount to adultery, and so it seems hypocritical to say that’s okay but my future wife must be a virgin bride.

    Any advice is very appreciated. My mind is still reeling from the effects of the red pill, and there seems to be a lot of information to critically examine. If there’s any particularly relevant posts about these issues, please let me know.

  3. Rather than “emotional infertility”, they should perhaps use the term “emotional greed”. The fact that one in every two women will shoo away many perfectly good men who want to be good fathers and husbands, just so she can get her tingles from mr. “right” (actually mr. Dark Triad Personality Traits), is one of the worst things about female nature and probably an important reason why, in biblical tradition, Adam fell precisely by conceding to Eve.

  4. deti says:

    I was scared I would not meet Mr Right and have children so I foolishly married someone I did not love and was ultimately unhappy with…the trade off? my two beautiful son’s who I love totally. Would I do the same again? Yes, because I would not have missed my two son’s for the world. I guess sperm donation would or could have been an option but it was not widely available back then…and I do think, despite how I felt about my ex husband, that my son’s benefited from having two parents during their growing up years. I just wish I could have had both my son’s and an ‘happy ever after’ marriage with their Father…that would have been so nice.

    And now, the Hamsterlation:

    “It was all about me, my wants, my needs and what I thought was best. I wanted kids, dammit, so I married a man I didn’t love. My husband made me unhaaaaappy so I divorced him. But it’s all good, because I got two kids out of it. Never mind that I used my ex husband to give me what I wanted. Never mind I wasted the best years of his life so I could get what I wanted. It’s all about me and what I want. I wanted my kids. And I’d do it all again, because what I want is most important. Yep, I’d use and abuse my hapless ex husband all over again, because it’s about what I want. As soon as my kids were grown up, my ex husband had served his purpose, so I got rid of him. It’s his fault that we got divorced because he didn’t tingle me. Oh well, you can’t have everything!”

  5. @deti:

    “And it’s not “for some really stupid reason”. It’s because the I-don’t -give-a-shit, bad boy, thug persona turns women on, and the “nice guy” doesn’t.”

    That *is* a really stupid reason, and a deeply immoral one at that. Saying that it isn’t stupid is a bit like saying that if Satan the “bad boy” was alluring to some people, and Jesus the “nice guy” wasn’t, they wouldn’t be stupid to turn to Satan.

  6. Höllenhund says:

    “I guess sperm donation would or could have been an option but it was not widely available back then…and I do think, despite how I felt about my ex husband, that my son’s benefited from having two parents during their growing up years.”

    In other words, the dutiful husband is merely a tool, a facilitator of the feminine imperative.

  7. Sharrukin says:

    Yes, because I would not have missed my two son’s for the world. I guess sperm donation would or could have been an option but it was not widely available back then…

    I pity those two boys having a mother who sees men as this disposable and little more than sperm donors.

  8. HeligKo says:

    @deti:

    ‘And now, the Hamsterlation:

    “It was all about me, my wants, my needs and what I thought was best. I wanted kids, dammit, so I married a man I didn’t love. My husband made me unhaaaaappy so I divorced him. But it’s all good, because I got two kids out of it. Never mind that I used my ex husband to give me what I wanted. Never mind I wasted the best years of his life so I could get what I wanted. It’s all about me and what I want. I wanted my kids. And I’d do it all again, because what I want is most important. Yep, I’d use and abuse my hapless ex husband all over again, because it’s about what I want. As soon as my kids were grown up, my ex husband had served his purpose, so I got rid of him. It’s his fault that we got divorced because he didn’t tingle me. Oh well, you can’t have everything!”’

    Oh my god that is what I have been trying to get into words in my head for the past few days. That is exactly what I have felt about my marriage. I was 22, she was 28-29. She used her experience to pull me right out of the crowd in church, where I had multiple women my age interested in me. I bought her lines and fell in love. 15 years later our youngest is in 3rd grade, and we are not together. The marriage was horrible. She has her new man. I pay the kids bills. I have been furious the past few weeks and couldn’t put it into words, but it comes down to I signed up for a Christian Marriage where we loved each other, and she used that to steal some of my best years from me to get what she wanted. She never had the intention to give what she promised at the altar. I admit naivety on my part entering into the deal.

    If she were a man, she would have been shooed away into a different class of singles more her age, and made to feel like a predator for going to the class of newly graduated from college people.

  9. Starviolet says:

    Can men really not tell when a woman doesn’t love them?

  10. Feminist Hater says:

    Can you really not tell when we don’t give a crap what you think or say?

  11. deti says:

    Star:

    The same principle is at work when a slut falls for a player, thinking that her sexing him up will get him to fall in love with them and propose marriage.

  12. deti says:

    Can a woman really not tell when she’s just being used for sex?

  13. HeligKo says:

    @Starviolet – Really, when she is consciously ensuring that he feels loved until she gets what she wants, no we cannot. We cannot actually read women’s thoughts and emotions. We have what they show us to interpret.

  14. SV –

    Women are not the only ones that find it easy to deceive themselves depending in how attracted they are to the other people in their lives.

    It used to be that both sexes received solid counsel on how to identify emotional swindlers. That is not so common anymore, alas.

  15. AJ Miller says:

    I have been dating now for a while. The women I have gone out with are in their late 40’s early 50’s. These are my observations which by the way match a lot of what has been said in this blog:

    1. The very attractive ones have gone through the carousel at one time or another during their lives. They have the bad boy imprinted in their heads and won’t fall in love with anyone because of that. This is especially the case if they have gone through menopause. They are looking for a combination of Tarzan and King Kong. Anything less will not give them the tingles.

    2. Almost all the women that I have met claimed that at one time or another during their previous marriage(s) they didn’t love their husband(s) and thus were not happy. In many cases they admitted never ever being in love with their husband(s). They also blame their ex(s). They admit that they may never fall in love. To understand this go to point #1 above.

    3. Many of the ones that are not so pretty nowdays did try the carousel. They were thrown out of the carousel and thus now don’t look so good or they were not too pretty to begin with but did get a taste of it. They have an inflated view of their own beauty because they did manage to be with at least one apha thug.

    4. Most women claim that men are too shallow and only interested in outer beauty. What they really mean is that the alpha dudes don’t give them the time of day. They themselves are just as shallow or worse and won’t give a nice Christian man the time of day.

    5. Many of the so-called Christian single ladies can give a good impression of a virtuous woman. They claim to emphasize Christian spirituality and that that is what they are looking in a man. Yet, should John the Baptist appear at their church somday they would have no problem snubbing and kicking him in the teeth because he is too Christian and too nice of a man. They can be quite brutal in putting men down.

    6. Most women are actually scared of a relationship. They see men as sexual predators because that is what they pursued or let themselves be pursued by at one time or another. As they get older and lose interest in sexuality they feel guilt and equate all men and relationships with fornication. They don’t know any better.

    7. I am sure that there are nice Christian ladies out there but it is a toil to find one. The problem is making sure that that women who seems nice and virtuous isn’t a slut even though she hasn’t behaved at one for different reasons. Also, I need to make sure that those ladies who repented did indeed so. After all repentance is at the heart of our faith.

  16. deti says:

    Star:

    Men of heligko’s generation were specifically taught that women were exactly like men in their thought processes. They were taught to take women at their word and to take what women said at face value. IOW, what she said was what she meant. They were taught that trying to read into a woman’s actions or speech was sexist, wrong and mean-spirited.

    When she said “I want to have sex with you”, he took that to mean exactly what she said, even though what she meant was “I want to get a husband and you’re the best candidate so I guess you’ll do, and I need to do this to get a husband.”

    When she said “I love you” he took that to mean she loved him, even though what she meant was “I need a husband and I’ll say whatever I have to to manipulate you into doing what I want and giving me what I want”.

    When she had sex with him, he took that to mean she loved him and wanted to have sex with him, even though what she was doing was using and manipulating and defrauding him.

    When she married him, he took that to mean she actually wanted to be married to him; even though what she was doing was using and manipulating and defrauding him.

    He was taught that women don’t use or manipulate or defraud. Only evil men do those things. He was taught that when women marry, it is only for love. He was taught that women never have sex unless they are looking for love or are in love or just trying to find someone to love them and marry them. He was taught that the secret to a successful Christian marriage is to do what she wants, give her what she wants, say what she wants, and do whatever it takes to make her happy. He was taught that these things are his responsibility as a Christian husband. He was taught that if his wife is not happy or does not love him, it is HIS fault and it is HIS duty to fix it.

    He was not taught that women are not attracted to “nice” men. He was not taught that women want confident, dominant, assertive men.

    So yeah, most men cannot tell when a woman does not love them. The above is why.

  17. HeligKo says:

    @AJ:

    5 – That is absolutely correct, and Christian men are taught to not question them
    6 – BOOM. I have run into this. They say they want it, but especially divorced women when confronted with a real opportunity run from it, unless there is some other motive involved. Usually financial
    7 – Amen to that. You are also to not question their repentance. That is between them and God and we are to accept it. This is in part what got me with my ex. The problem is I should have judged her based on her past and measured her as lacking. She and God can have their repentance, and I would never pass eternal judgement on her.

  18. Starviolet says:

    Deti- a woman who is being used for sex probably didn’t interact with the man for very long before they had sex. A man who marries a woman usually spends a lot of time with her first. It is surprising to me that a man could miss something as obvious as a woman not loving him over that kind of time period.

  19. Tifa is full of crap. She is also not very bright.
    She says:”You could ask yourself why that 70% filed for divorce. Surely that would be a more telling statistic on the break up of marriages”

    Sweety, the answer to that question isnt a statistic. You didnt ask for a number, you asked WHY. Someone needs to show me how “why?” can be answered with a number/statistic. I guess to some women anything is a statistic.

    The rest of her blather says that she divorced a husband for stupid reasons and doesnt want to think about it.

    Nothing to see there

  20. deti says:

    Star:

    How old are you? You’re not married and never have been, have you?

    You would be surprised how well the rationalization hamster can act. Your hamster is spinning so fast, even you can’t see it yourself.

  21. HeligKo says:

    @deti: absolutely correct, except we never had sex before marriage. She was a reformed slut, and thus deserved the same respect the woman who saved herself got. Uhg, I actually believed that crap. I also became a nice guy. I was a dominant guy. I was captain of all my teams, and I have been informed recently at my re-union that I dated almost every girl in my class and the one behind me. I don’t remember anything other than having a lot of fun. That all changed when I started trying to follow the teaching of the church on biblical manhood. I was a christian, and was not sleeping with all these girls in high school, though many if not most would have and often pushed for it.

  22. Goodness star, sisnt you see the guy listing off above that there are women running around, in their 40’s, saying that IN RETROSPECT they were never in love?
    That is all bullshit anyway, its meaningless drivel, its what she needs to say exactly that moment in time in order to get to the next moment in time where she can say whatever that next moment requires to prevent the sublimation of her emotions

  23. Buck says:

    @ Starviolet says:
    September 6, 2012 at 3:13 pm

    “Can men really not tell when a woman doesn’t love them?”
    Men take words at face value and men value truth in others.
    Women are trained to lie from their earliest age, so yes, a reasonably convincing female can lie about her true feelings to a man for decades.
    Further, most men don’t really listen to women after a while anyway…the constant nagging, complaining, droning on about idiot crap, we learn to just tune out.
    As the unhappy women continues to nag the guy will retreat into work, hobbies, the kids, thus they further lose connection with their crotchety wife.
    The guys hope that as wifey ages and gains weight, while the kids grow up, her complaining will diminish and she will resign herself to “life” and even though it’s not great, it’s at least predictable. Men do this sort of calculation ALL the time.
    Alas, women are different as evidenced by these divorce stats!

    I have a work colleague who was married 25 years, has 4 kids… they seemed great together. Wifey announces out of the blue, that she never loved “him” hates being married, doesn’t want the kids and she ups and leaves with her old high school boyfriend…she is 54. BUT she absolutely wanted 1/2 of everything, alimony and a claim on his retirement, PLUS child support, just because! He’s been going through the court meat grinder for the past year and a half.
    No one saw this coming, not her family, not his, the friends, total shocker!

  24. Feminist Hater says:

    You see gents, it all comes down to reading womens’ emotions. You stupid men should be mind readers. If not… SUCKS TO BE YOU!

    Star has shown countless times that she’s searching for tingles. Her hamster is in hot pursuit of Jennifer, DH and others. Ignore her vaginal discharge. Let her enjoy the carousel and hit the wall at the speed of light.

  25. HeligKo says:

    @starviolet: I know guys who go back to the same girl over and over again in between girlfriends just for sex. They usually know each other pretty well, even move in the same social circles. She usually thinks she can land him if she just keeps him around.

    In my case as the man I was kept believing that she loved me with acts of service and her sexual prowess. We didn’t have sex, but she was very good at walking up to the line letting me know the promise of what was to come after we were married. After we were married, there was almost nothing that came. My male version of the rationalization hamster would not accept that a woman would marry me and not love me added with church teachings made me believe that there something wrong in what I was doing.

  26. Sharrukin says:

    It is surprising to me that a man could miss something as obvious as a woman not loving him over that kind of time period.

    I don’t think you really understand how generous in their opinions some men are towards women. They are called ‘nice guys’ for a reason. They have a difficult time interpreting female motives in an uncharitable light.

  27. Opus says:

    Tragedy struck last week in London’s Mayfair, when Miss Amanda Telfer a single 44 year old Intellectual Property Lawyer was struck by a falling half-ton piece of wood. She died at the scene. I can only imagine that the reasonably attractive Miss Telfer had yet to find Mr Right but in the meanwhile had been giving up her spare time to give free advice to prisoners caught up at Guantanamo Bay – women just love dangerous men!

    Still – at least she did not give up her freedom (as she doubtless worked 14 hours a day 6 days a week for her employers who described her as ‘talented’ – isn’t that damning with faint praise when you are forty-four?)

  28. HeligKo says:

    @Buck you nailed it, especially on how men would rather deal with the stability of the arrangement over the alternatives. I am still mad that I am once again single. Not that I want to be married to her. My mother, who sees the world through very different eyes than most modern women, asked me “Is there anything I miss about my ex” Not marriage, but the person. I said “no”. She said I was better off then. Hmm, in a way she is right, and in another sense it shows that even women who have committed themselves to one man forever, and she has, see the world differently. I say this because my family is not better off with us divorcing. My identity is tied to that family. Hers isn’t. society seems to associate things the other way. They point to the women as being identified with the family and men with all these external things. I think its a ruse that has been sold to us since the Leave It To Beaver Era of TV.

  29. “This is not helped by men like my attractive, thirty-something male work colleague who won’t go out with women over thirty because they want babies. Hé doesn’t want to be ‘tied down’. I get a bit fed up with women being blamed for not having babies at the medically approved time. Men are involved too.”

    Wow, that seems like an eery corollary to the “it takes two to make a woman a slut” argument, or the notion that an average men is as promiscuous as the average woman, because mathmatically it takes one man and one women to fornicate (so clearly in the feminsists faulty logic that means there are as many men fornicating as women). This is just more solipsism, would we expect more?

  30. Feminist Hater says:

    People can’t read minds. It’s due to this and the deception of people that the ‘contract’ was invented and has served its purpose ever since. The purpose of protection, to put the affirmed bartering of two or more people on paper (or record) for future reference. To hold a person to their word, so to speak. The marriage between two people is no different, it needs to be protected by laws that hold the two who marry to account. To one another, their families and their children. Marriage is the protection that both spouses seek, marriage protection is the only reason a woman can rely on ‘no sex before marriage’ as protection for her purity.

    That Star can so brazenly push this aside as if it were so simply to tell that someone loves you, shows her naivete and selfishness. She’s delusion and arrogant. A husk with no virtue.

  31. Starviolet makes an excellent point. Men should know when a woman doesn’t submit to her father and respect him as a man then she is unsuitable. Don’t buy the feminists line that this is passe’ and that you should believe the words and NOT the ACTIONS of the woman. If a woman is promiscuous she has shown she has a disrespect for her father AND her future husband, game over man. She is incapable of both love AND self-control, she won’t submit (because it is the morally right thing to do) nor will she give respect or loyalty, those circuits have been blown.

    Christian men really should know better.

  32. driversuz says:

    FH is right about SV. She’s been reading here long enough to learn something, if she’s capable of it or interested.

    Deti, HeligKo, Buck, pretty much everybody here – dead on. Most of these women are simply unable to understand that their own choices are the reason for their failures. Particularly the one blaming Men-Who-Won’t-Marry. REALLY?? That guy is keeping you from marrying a good man who wants to be a good husband and father?

    I realize that all of society has become all comfy and wussified, but I’m constantly amazed by the number of “Empowered Women” who are utterly powerless in the face of their own fantasies. They victimize themselves. And men, and their children. All in search of a unicorn! How does an adult convince herself that such a thing exists? Do these women watch TV around the clock and never even notice how the real world operates? Waaay too much luxury…

  33. Starviolet says:

    @ I art laughing! I agree for the most part. When someone is being honest their words and actions usually say the same thing. This is very hard to fake for any period of time.

  34. Feminist Hater says:

    And that’s why no one can prove Dalrock’s assertion wrong. There’s no more protection for men who marry. The marriage union is kaput. It ain’t worth the paper it’s written on.

    As said countless times on this blog, the woman’s emotions rule the roost. Any time she doesn’t feel happy, she can pull the plug, with the full backing of the State and its handlers. She could love the man one second and then suddenly no longer be in love with him. Love really doesn’t come into this, there are always exceptions of men and women who marry and truly love each other till they die. That doesn’t apply to the majority though and for society to function for the other 98% of people, protection needs to be in place to provide security in a sordid marriage climate.

    Speaking to the choir of course…

  35. The problem is SV as pointed out so eloquently by Deti, everyone who has swallowed the tripe of feminism has been told that womens motives are pure as the driven snow, that they have hearts of gold and would never decieve their “loved” ones and certainly not themselves. This is especially true in Evangelical Feminism AND the ‘church”.

  36. siquaeris says:

    That final comment from Tifa Lockheart about why there’s no such thing as a frivolous divorce is typical. She’s effectively arguing that it could be that men are more than twice as likely as women to be drunk, abusive, or cheat. By doing so, she used the fallacy of distraction to avoid looking at the real issue, and she’s trying to appeal to emotion to fuel misandry in women and so that men will feel the need to defend their gender.

    The fact in question is that women are more than twice as likely to file for divorce than men. This fact has been studied, and the most widely accepted study (Brinig and Allen) has concluded that the primary reason for this, by a wide margin, is because women get the kids.

  37. Starviolet says:

    @ I art laughing – no one with an ounce of common sense believes that women never lie. I think that men know and just deceive themselves. Kind of like how some men pretend that the prostitute really cares about them and would have sex with them for free but she needs to make a living. Or those girlfriend experiences that men pay for where a woman pretends that she’s into them even outside of the sex. Many men are capable of ignoring the fact that they aren’t loved or that a woman isn’t that into them when it suits them.

  38. The woman is *always* the victim–that’s the founding tenet of feminism. That’s its cornerstone. “We the people” is the founding tenet of America, “Judge people by their character, not their color” is the founding tenet of the civil rights movement, and “women are the victim” is the founding belief of feminism.

  39. deti says:

    Star:

    I see. So it’s men’s fault that they marry women who don’t love them even though these women say they do and they have sex with these men and come across in every way, shape, manner and form that they do love their men… until after she says “I do” and pops out a couple of kids and now has a legal right to half his money and property.

    Got it.

  40. Feminist Hater says:

    deti, told you not to bother with this gutter trash whore. It’s always the man’s fault.

  41. gunner451 says:

    Just a few thoughts to round out the comments, first I noticed in Dalrock’s write-up nobody mentioned to elephant in the room as to why 70% of the women initiate divorce which is that they are guaranteed cash and prizes in the form of child support, alimony and half of everything that he has plus the family home. Why go it alone with a sperm bank when you can marry that sperm bank and then drain him financially for the rest of his life? No brainer in my opinion, she knows the score which is why she married someone she didn’t “love” in the first place.

    Secondly people are talking too much about why, how or if the wife “loved” them. The bible never commands a wife to love her husband but it does command her to submit to him. There’s a lot in Ephesians for the husband to love his wife but there is nothing in there about the opposite. I was taught by the feminized churchians that this was because women “naturally love” their man and so don’t need to be commanded to love them whereas men don’t naturally love their wives so need to be told to. I now believe that is a lie and the real truth is quite the opposite. Men naturally love their wives and God is just re-enforcing the true nature of man with this command. On the other hand women naturally submit to those that they view as their superior (headship) and that submission is a sign of respect for his leadership in their lives. The one thing that kills a womans desire for her man is when she does not respect him, love really has nothing to do with it as a women can say she loves someone but has no respect for him and so exhibits all the symptoms that we see in todays marriages.

    HeligKo’s story is a good example of this in action, he married a woman older than him who was obviously a former rider of the carousel. Because she was older she really did not have any respect for him since she viewed herself as the older, wiser person in the marriage and therefore the natural leader. This lack of respect lead to a lack of submission and a lack of any real desire on her part for him sexually. Saw this in my own marriage even though she was slightly younger she still had no respect for me and as such no real desire. Also, as I found out later (she lied about her N count, who would have thought?) she was a major rider of the carousel and as such her heart was as hard as granite and her sexual desire for a non-bad boy beta provider was about as low as it could go. No fun being in that kind of relationship which is why guys should avoid even the “reformed” sluts in church. No matter what they say if they have a high N count your can bet that they’ll be comparing you to every bad boy that reamed them so hard they couldn’t walk for a week. That plus they view that experience as meaning that they are the wiser about relationships (since they have so much experience getting pumped and dumped) and will not respect you and so will never truly submit to you, nor will they ever really have much sexual desire for you because of that lack of respect.

  42. driversuz says:

    SV:
    “Many men are capable of ignoring the fact that they aren’t loved or that a woman isn’t that into them when it suits them.”
    Sure they are, and these days they’re well-trained to do just that. Ignore the red flags and believe the excuses, because only a vile pig would presume to challenge a Woman! What kind of paranoid psycho does a man have to be to NOT trust a woman? She said it, didn’t she? Who is he to question her?

  43. Deti, I think it’s more like a round about, hamsterlated, AWALT argument. Essentially any man that believes his love interest is more than a conniving prostitute only intertested in what he can do for her social status, her emotional status (the tingles) or financial status is a dupe. Any guy who believes NAWALT is a rube.

    That is an especially cynical hamster.

  44. siquaeris says:

    @starviolet: I’ll put my two cents in about why men can’t see that their woman doesn’t love them. While this might not be true in all cases, I’ve seen it enough: a woman falls in love with the idea of marriage and she projects this love onto her man (up until the time they get married, or until things don’t turn out as perfectly as she had fantasized). Some men can tell the difference between love for him and love of an ideal, but they have to be rather experienced with women and capable of stepping back and viewing things objectively.

  45. Sharrukin says:

    Star:

    I see. So it’s men’s fault that they marry women who don’t love them even though these women say they do…

    Her basic point…
    “You can’t spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You fucked up… you trusted us! Hey, make the best of it!”

  46. Martian Bachelor says:

    We didn’t have sex, but she was very good at walking up to the line letting me know the promise of what was to come after we were married. After we were married, there was almost nothing that came. (HeligKo)

    They call it love and marriage.

    We call it bait and switch.

    I still remember when Dr. Phil was young, and had a generic couple on for marital counseling. The topic of BJ’s came up (and hubbie not getting them), and the hooker’s attitude was that she most certainly didn’t have to do that anymore — now that she’s married!

    There’s a reason for the saying “Chastity begins with marriage”.

  47. Interested says:

    @AJ

    Spot on.

    I am a little behind you on your stated demographic, but pretty much all you listed still applies in one way or another to most all the women I meet in their early to late forties. If you cannot easily see some of these traits the entitlement certainly comes through.

    When I was just out of my divorce I was frustrated and angry about meeting women like this. This was probably mixed in with just plain anger after the divorce. Now I am just amused. I keep an open mind until they show their hand. Solomon II had a post up once about Nancy Drew Girls who are truly promiscuous and who question everything you do. He commented that sooner or later they all confessed to their promiscuous ways and to all the crazy things they had done. He said it sounded strangely like bragging.

    That line has always stuck with me because when many of these women play their hand and open up about how they used some guy, or how some beta loser followed them around, or how they flaked on some guy for no good reason, it always sounds like bragging. Even from one self professed Christian woman who, at first, seemed like she might work out. It’s almost seems like they are trying to convince themselves that their current life is exactly the same as the fantasy that led them to divorce some guy or never get married. That their life has been one long string of good decisions. Unfortunately, the conviction doesn’t last too long and then you get to see the flashes of anger as they ultimately confess how much has not turned out so well be it money, foreclosed houses, bad jobs, unruly kids, you name it. As you might imagine I don’t offer any sympathy. I just make a hard rational decision on whether I want to invest any energy in furthering the relationship beyond something casual. So far I am betting .1000 on keeping it casual or never calling back.

    “I am sure that there are nice Christian ladies out there but it is a toil to find one.”

    I’m not targeting the Christian ladies as I don’t attend any services, but the same applies to secular women.

  48. an observer says:

    So women lie. . . but it’s men fault for overlooking it.

    Hmmm. . . Culpability is thy name. . .

  49. Starviolet says:

    Deti- a man who marries a woman that doesn’t love him is at least as much as fault as a woman who falls for a player and is used for sex. Yes the player and the not in love woman have dishonorable intentions but that doesn’t excuse the other from due diligence. My friend’s father was recently divorced by a woman 15 years younger and much more attractive than he was after a few years of marriage. She emptied his accounts and racked up a ridiculous amount of debt in his name before she left. Now it should have been obvious to a blind man that this young, beautiful woman didn’t want a slightly pudgy, balding, middle aged man for anything other than the money he provided. Yes, she is disgusting, but he should have known better. He probably did know better on some level.

  50. Feminist Hater says:

    Lol, an observer, the law now exists to provide men with the responsibility of women’s culpability.

  51. Feminist Hater says:

    Star, you’re forgetting something, you silly whore, you. The marriage contract is there to provide protection, for both the man and the woman. As you are pointing out, it doesn’t anymore. Therefore, you have proved that it is worthless, well done!

    Please continue…

  52. Elaine says:

    She has two sons remember….maybe there might be poetic justice with her two sons marrying women who didn’t love them and leaving them without kids and house and everything else…and then they would have to move back to mommy. Hang on, maybe that was her plan all along ? Maybe she is one of those mommie dearest types who treat their sons like pseudo husbands, forever beholden to her for giving them life !

  53. deti says:

    Observer:

    Let’s hamsterlate Star’s posts.

    We women lie — but it’s your fault for being unable to read our minds and discern the lie!

    We women lie — but it’s your fault for ignoring the lie because you love us!

    We women lie — but it’s your fault for wanting sex so much that you overlook the lie!

    We women lie — but it’s your fault for thinking that we would not lie!

    We women lie — but it’s your fault because…. well, because I say it is and I don’t want to take the blame!

    We women lie — but it’s your fault because… well, because it just is!

  54. deti says:

    Star, 9/6/12 at 4:54 pm::

    Every time I think I’ve seen the limits of a hamster’s abilities, I’m surprised again.

    Every time I think I’ve seen it all, I continue to be amazed.

    Go hamster go!

  55. Starviolet says:

    Deti- men also lie. And women should do their due diligence and use their common sense to minimize the chances of being deceived.

  56. deti says:

    We women lie — but it’s your fault because you lie too!

  57. deti says:

    Says Star:

    We women lie, but it is OK because after all, men lie too. So even if it’s my fault, it’s your fault too.

  58. Feminist Hater says:

    Okay, now I’m bored, this hamster has a workout routine and I cannot be bothered to keep track.

  59. Starviolet says:

    @ deti – ok. You can pretend that I said something other than what I actually said if that easier than addressing what I posted.

  60. SV, when a man lies to a woman to get sex we call it “playing”, he’s a “player” which is morally wrong, when a women uses sex to get money we call that prostitution and she is a whore. When he uses force to take sex from a woman we call that rape and he is a rapist, when a woman uses the force to take money from a man she claimed to “love” what should we call that, what should we call her?

  61. an observer says:

    We women lie – but its your fault.

    Denial springs eternal.

  62. A single mother? A divorcee? A victim of an unloving and unworthy husband?

  63. Feminist Hater says:

    Ohhhh, it’s my lucky day or night, whatever.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/9521000/Brussels-announces-new-law-to-fine-offensive-language.html

    A woman walked down the streets, in a highly multicultural part of Belgium, gets hounded by immigrants, makes a movie of it and now the laws are changed so that EVERYONE is now punished. Including native Belgium men who had nothing to do with it. Brilliant! Simply brilliant!

    Belgium women will now start to complain about men not asking them out, I hope they just point to this little law and show them the door…

  64. an observer says:

    Ial,

    She is called a strong, independent woman. One of Glenn Stantons heroes. Men are encouraged to worship at her footstool.

    All thanks to the unholy trinity of government, churchianity and armed beta enablers.

  65. namae nanka says:

    “It is surprising to me that a man could miss something as obvious as a woman not loving him over that kind of time period.”

    Mencken was writing of such doofuses back in the day.

    http://www.heretical.com/miscella/mhusbach.html

  66. AJ Miller says:

    @Kieran,

    I am with you and feel your pain. It doesn’t appear to be any different if you are in your 20’s or early 50’s. All I can say is to be yourself and realize that just as you are a good man in this crazy world there is a small percentage of women that are also good and one of them is waiting for you. It will take time and some work to find her but it will happen. Just don’t get bitter with life or God. It isn’t His fault but rather Adam’s fault for bringing sin unto the world. Just see this as combat and meeting a mate is your ultimate goal. You will go through battles and you will see some things that a gentleman shouldn’t see. Hang in there and you will find her.

  67. Starviolet says:

    @ I art laughing- I have no idea what she should be called. However I think that people need to realize that their marriage contract is the laws of their state. If that’s not sufficient protection then they need a prenup that outlines additional or alternative terms.

  68. Interested says:

    @AJ

    “They have the bad boy imprinted in their heads”

    This reminded me of a lady I met while waiting to run a race. We had to get there really early for race and most all the participants were herded into a big tent to wait for a couple of hours. I used the time to work the crowd for ladies to talk to. I ran across three sisters. All right around my age, two of them married for a long time, the third divorced.

    I joked and flirted and they started spilling the beans. The two married sisters kept saying what a jerk the third sister used to be married to. They interviewed me relentlessly. The divorced sister and I had a lot in common and you could just see her sisters trying to hook us up. The attractive divorcee let it out that they would all be at the same bar that my friends and I were going to go to after the race and that she really wanted me to come by.

    Needless to say, we got there and the divorcee waved me over. First I met the husbands of the two long married sisters. Nice, regular guys, nothing special. But you could see the connection between the spouses. It was nice to see. Miss divorcee? Being played by some 40 something guy who was in town for a summer tourist job. You could see the disgust on the married sister’s faces. But our lovely divorcee was enthralled. With a guy who would be leaving at the end of the summer for his next “tourist job”.

    Years ago I would not have recognized the dynamics at play and would have stayed there chatting. After my divorce I might have been pissed. But I just laughed, immediately excused myself, and went back to having fun with my friends and other ladies we met. I didn’t have the heart to tell the married sisters to give up. That their divorced sister would never be attracted to a man they admired.

  69. Dalrock says:

    @Starviolet

    Deti- a man who marries a woman that doesn’t love him is at least as much as fault as a woman who falls for a player and is used for sex. Yes the player and the not in love woman have dishonorable intentions but that doesn’t excuse the other from due diligence.

    If you only knew how callous you appear to those reading, you would be mortified. The reality is there is no comparison. The player is involved in a deliberately vague exchange, an exchange where both parties took great pains not to make any commitments. His only crime (beyond the mutual sin of fornication) is not being the one who gets conned.

    The man who marries on the other hand is deliberately constraining himself in what he thinks is a two way agreement. This isn’t some drunken hookup; he stands up in front of God and everyone and makes a lifetime promise, one with teeth. This post was about the fact that marriage is now an open con for any and every woman who wants to use it as such. Yet you can’t find an ounce of empathy for men. You are profoundly devoid of human compassion. I thank you for your participation here though. Young (and not so young) men looking to marry need to see the perspective you bring to the table.

    Note men how unaware of her own selfishness she is. She sees absolutely nothing wrong with something as sacred as marriage being used as an organized con. Countless millions of innocent children not to mention their fathers are torn up as a matter of course in this process, and all she can do is posture and distract. The women you meet outside of the internet won’t always be as obvious if they feel this way, but by seeing the undiluted form of it from Starviolet you can hopefully better spot it when attempts are made to hide it.

  70. Jason says:

    Interesting post as usual Dalrock.

    With all these statistics tossed around it would be really interesting to see them broken down further. they never seem to be, and would probably be more revealing if they were, which is why they probably aren’t.

    I suspect the 70% of women vs 30% of men file stat, would upon further investigation turn out to be a lot like the “women are payed less than men” statistic. It is true enough in a broad statistical sense, but it certainly hides far more than it reveals. I suspect this stat may be similar.

    After all, it is known that many men file after their wives run off with someone else and so on. I am sure there are women who file in cases like that as well. Likewise it will be the spouse who has run off that does the filing to “get out of the marriage” so they can be with their new “special someone”. The stat in question hides all of that.

    I guess with no fault divorce and the general lack of divorce record keeping the interesting data on why people split up is lost, when fault doesn’t need to be shown, and the at fault party can actually be the one to file,

    Still it would be interesting if the data did exist, to see how it shook out. Who filed and for what reason. The results might be really surprising, or not even remotely surprising depending on where you sit.

    Alas, given what manosphere anecdotes about peoples experiences with getting divorced suggest, if they are not all just outliers (I’m assuming they aren’t) then feminists wouldn’t like the results of parsing the data more carefully, anymore than they like the results of parsing the “female pay inequality data” even a little more carefully.

  71. Elaine says:

    Star, men who are smart enough to make big bucks (yes, even the younger better looking ones) are under no illusions as to why hot stunning women want to be with them. That is why most insist on pre-nup agreements and those who don’t (insist on pre-nup) are prepared to fully accept the risks they entail. I think men like to know in advance what the deal is, so they might make educated judgements as to whether or not they want to take up the deal. They can accept that things change during a long marriage, and that feelings can and do change. However, for a woman to know in advance that she is not in love with a man and to go through the ceremony saying she does and then going on to pretend that she does, smacks of “fraud”. Yes, it is that simple and that black and white with men. Women think it is not fraud because after all, she has given the man her fertility, his children and her “best” years.

  72. ukfred says:

    Bskillet summed it all up with his postings about the Evangelical American Princess and her entitlement mentality. It’s really just the old 2-rule system so far as the women are concerned:

    Rule #1 It is always the man’s fault
    Rule #2 In cases where it is the woman’s fault, refer to Rule #1
    All hamsters can cope with those rules.

  73. Jason says:

    @Starviolet,

    Umm … prenups are worthless if the judge presiding over the case decides it is worthless. The contract simply wont be enforced.

    If the only protection offered is “the marriage laws of your state”, then men would be well advised to never ever under any circumstances marry. Marriage is a “contract” that can be unilaterally dissolved by either party with zero consequences for the party dissolving it, and under current law, there isn’t even protection against fraud against either party if the other party commits it (either by lying before getting married about things like being a virgin, or via fathering children by other men in the case of women).

    Either you are unaware of this, or Dalrock is spot on it calling you utterly callous and selfish. I’m going to go with the latter based on your other posts.

  74. Starviolet says:

    @dalrock – it was deti who made the original comparison between the woman who falls for the player and the man who can’t tell that he isn’t loved. See his comment at 3:23.

  75. deti says:

    Dalrock, 5:26 pm:

    I am not sure Starviolet is absolving women of wrongdoing. What she is trying to do, and what is clear, is that she is attempting to spread the blame around. She is saying that if women are to blame by being manipulative liars, then men are to blame for not figuring out that women are manipulative liars. According to Star, the men are supposed to be able to tell that she’s a bitch even though she comes across as a loving, supportive wife.

    In other words, men need to protect themselves even when they don’t see a need to protect themselves, but they should just know to protect themselves.

    Her exhortation that men are to do their due diligence supports that men must trust but verify; investigate potential spouses and do background checks. Her position essentially buttresses an argument that women cannot and should not be trusted.

    I wonder if Star meant to make this argument.

  76. Feminist Hater says:

    She’s boring and needs to be sent to DH’s feminism camp for girls. She needs to also find an impotent husband who then allows her to screw other men. DH’s introductory course “Feminists in the Mist” will help her pursue this new ideal mating strategy as it allows her to get the attention of non-available alpha men, who can then impregnate her. After the introduction, DH’s course material then moves on to “Feminism and Divorce: Getting your husband’s shit”, which teaches and trains the use of the girl’s hamster in hamsterbatics, a truly vital skill that SV has already shown immense potential in. That would be a great start, I would also recommend a women’s studies decree. Good for diversity en sheet!

  77. Feminist Hater says:

    That should be degree, not decree.

  78. an observer says:

    Deti,

    Either way, we can be thankful for the instructive example of solipsism and moxie.

    A heady brew, to be sure.

  79. 7man says:

    So I guess Starviolet is affirming the Red Pill wisdom to ignore what a woman says and pay attention to what she does. Then a woman’s lies will be revealed by the inconsistancies. SV is agreeing that women lie and should not be trusted or taken at face value. She may say, “But, but, but… MDTT (Men Do That Too!)”

    In reality; No, not really since a decent man will endeavor to make his actions reflect his words, but women do not value self consistancy .

  80. an observer says:

    Fh,

    After completing introductory courses, the student is encouraged to pursue highet level studies.

    Feminists at work – getting that promotion
    Feminists in the legislature – wealth redistribution by decree
    Feminist intellectuals – advanced hamsterbatics

    The advanced student will progress to attain the Doctor of Felinity degree. Cats will be awarded at graduation.

  81. van Rooinek says:

    Kieran — There seems to be a profound dearth of young Christian women prepared to give priority to a husband and a family. My church is small and there’s nobody suitable there, yet I am not prepared to seek another church at this point because God has confirmed that he wants me to continue serving this church

    Try the internet. It’s a cheap, low-cost way of vastly enlarging your search pool. I met my wife on the internet, on a Christian dating website. we’re married 10 years w/ 3 kids now.

    She wasn’t very far away from me, but we went to different churches and our social circles had minimal overlap. After we got together, we eventually figured out that we did have a couple of aquaintances in common, but they would never have thought to introduce us. So we would not have met without the internet.

    Also… at one time, not long before we met online, I did consider dropping in on the singles meeting of her church but declined to do so since I was 37 at the time and the groups were divided “25-36″ and “37-50″. Older single groups in my experience tend to be all single men and divorced mothers — zero marriagable/fertile women — so I decided not to bother. Even if I had gone on my own, she’s 4 years younger and was in the other group so we’d stll never have met. But when she invited me over the internet, of course as her guest I was welcome in her group.

    A few more points…

    Be warned. The RED PILL is still true online. The internet just widens your search pattern, it does not magically filter for righteousness. Far from it, in my experience. Let’s just say my wife wasn’t the first person from the net, that I dated….. You will meet bad women on via the internet, too, and some of them can really hurt you. I got dealt one really awful heartbreak that way. Then there are the women who just want a free dinner or movie or two… so don’t spend too much too quickly.

    Beware of a setup. Criminals could easily set you up for a robbery, using a picture of a pretty girl (or even with the help of a pretty female accomplice.) Women are generally warned about meeting in safe spaces, in the company of friends/family, etc, but men need to be warned too. I recall a case of an Israeli teenager who fell for a Palestinian teenage girl over the net. They communicated, professed love, and gave away their hearts to perfect strangers from opposite sides of the battle lines (yes, the easy dropping of personal barriers means you truly CAN fall in love before you physically meet.. be warned.) Eventually the young man, in the throes of desperate lovesickness, crossed over to the Palestinian area to meet her in person…. and was killed. She didn’t love him at all. She just played him because she thought it would be an easy, fun way to kill an Israeli.

    Don’t date anyone who lives more than an hour or two’s worth of travel away. You can’t build a real relationship or get to know her family and friends (or her, yours), if visiting her requires an airplane flight. Perhaps this rule could be relaxed for someone in the Australian outback or the Alaskan bush but not otherwise.

  82. greyghost says:

    You beat me to it Dalrock and did a better response to that starviolet. All Christian men read this thread over and over. This is why christian men and all men need game. Starviolet is a normal woman. She only comments as openly as she does due to the annominity of the intrernet but it is normal for women do think and feel like that. (btw they vote) All men need to know this is women. not a bad woman a normal woman. There is no sucjh thing as a christian woman and women do not have the capacity to love. They do gina tingle. That is the best you can expect from a normal woman.

  83. Feminist Hater says:

    Yes observer.

    Feminists at work – affirmative action and how to use one’s tits
    – beating frenemy of the week
    – scoring the boss after work
    – how to file a false accusation of sexual harassment;
    – and many more

    Feminist intellectualism – how women built the Pyramids
    – women invented Gravity, not God
    – how the Founding Mothers drew up the Constitution of America

    We need course material for about 3 or 4 years though…

  84. van Rooinek says:

    Israeli teenager…fell for a Palestinian teenage girl over the net…crossed over to the Palestinian area to meet her in person…. and was killed. She didn’t love him at all. She just played him because she thought it would be an easy, fun way to kill an Israeli.

    Random OT political comment. This is a good metaphor for all Israeli/Moslem negotiations, treaties, ceasfires, “peace agreements”, etc.

  85. van Rooinek says:

    Okay, google says I’m wrong. The Palestinian girl pretended to be American online.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Ofir_Rahum

    Still…

  86. Legion says:

    Sure I can protect myself: No marriage, No cohabitation, No sleeping over, Record all sex with consent of course & be obvious it is being recorded.

    Oh Brave New World, SV.

  87. hisoj says:

    taking a westernized/american woman at her word is like teasing a snake. some men have yet to learn that the snake has fangs, other men are trying to warn as many people as they can, and the snake is doing it’s best to misinform potential victims as to it’s nature.

  88. an observer says:

    Fh,

    Course length? The course will continue until consensus is achieved. This could take some time.

    Prof Mentu summed this up nicely:

    http://www.theuniversityofman.com/blog/2012/9/5/hundred-words-of-hate-vol-13.html

  89. van Rooinek says:

    Starviolet: When someone is being honest their words and actions usually say the same thing. This is very hard to fake for any period of time.

    Yea, she says she loves you. Vows eternal love at the altar. Then she marries you, lives with you, has your babies. Words and actions match.

    Men are less adept at detecting deception, because we DO IT A LOT LESS.

  90. Anonymous Reader says:

    The current system of marriage, 2.0, reminds me of a cynical programming joke.

    “That’s not a bug, it is a feature”.

  91. an observer says:

    Who was it that said to add the following words to any female utterance?

    “Right now i feel like. . . “

  92. Anonymous Reader says:

    I Art Laughing
    Starviolet makes an excellent point. Men should know when a woman doesn’t submit to her father and respect him as a man then she is unsuitable.

    This assumes that a woman grew up around her father. Given the divorce rate and the birth rate to unmarried women, is that a reasonable assumption to make? I’ve talked with groups of college students where about half – 50% – came from divorced parents. That’s half.

  93. greyghost says:

    Deti
    Doesn’t matter what she meant. A man doesn’t need to know shit about whats on a woman mind only the behavior. She needs to be told I don’t care what you think all my concern is is what you do. Imagine a preacher saying that in church to the female members.

  94. greyghost says:

    “That’s not a bug, it is a feature”.

    WEe have some men that know “game” Just a good old fashion normal girl.

  95. an observer says:

    Same old story. Not what she says, but what (who?) she does.

    No wonder i have so little respect for what women say anymore.m

  96. Martian Bachelor says:

    Software patch for younger men: consider how teen girls with Bieber Mania get; then just think how much more they’ll show the love with an actually attainable live guy in person who likes them back. That’s girl love. Wait for it. Don’t settle for less.

  97. an observer says:

    Correction: that’s wet the seat for the unattainable rock star lust.

    Unless you can game the woman with an unbreakable frame, good luck with waiting for that.

  98. Pirran says:

    ….Meanwhile, back at the Hamster Academy…..

    ” Avril, Cambridge, 6/9/2012 0:45
    Just saying…………No you have not left it too late! There are plenty of us out there having kids in our 40’s. Good luck!”

    She’s received 8 recommendations so far, so people obviously approve.
    The Gerbil is strong with this one…..

  99. greyghost says:

    Martian Bachelor
    Guess what I have two daughters one 11 the other 9. I asked them about getting the Bieber DVD and in unison they both said eweewww no not him he’s too wimpy. I told my wife to keep that in the bank our daughters will tingle for thugs.

  100. Cail Corishev says:

    Commenter JJ misses her own point: her 30-something work pal wouldn’t be able to find younger women to have no-strings dates with if those younger women weren’t putting off marriage in droves. If the 25-year-olds he asked out said, “I’d like to, but first: how do you feel about marriage and children?” then maybe he’d give women his own age another look. Or she could have just snagged her own version of him ten years sooner.

  101. Pingback: Dark Brightness | Bleak Theology: Hopeful Science

  102. @ Kieran

    We are in VERY similar situations.

    For me, it is best to accept that you are likely to remain single in this life. To do otherwise, and hope for something that may never come will probably drive you insane. I realized that although it is not good for man to be alone, and that I think men innately want a wife, it is not our most important imperative. Indeed I have come to see that our ONLY purpose, the reason we were created was to glorify God. That can happen through marriage, it can be a beautiful ministry, but rare in this age. That said, I don’t think we can completely drive out our innate desires, but life is short, focus on things that are eternal. I also realized that in the past, I wanted to be a husband for many wrong reasons, which is any reason that is not to solely glorify God – and I think that is true for most people and this attitude needs to change.

    I think it is also good that you’ve stayed at your Church, putting serving over your own wants. It is written, Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness, And all these things shall be added unto you. Now it doesn’t mean you will get what YOU want, but the Lord knows best. This is basically how I live, and at the same time I pray for a suitable wife – God willing. Also, at smaller/traditional Churches, you are more likely to find GENUINE Christians – there is no fun/cool/awesomeness/idolatry/prosperity/social incentive for them to be there other than the voice of God. Girls there are also likely to have been brought up in a God-fearing family which possibly translates to reduced corruption and all the problems you stated about the two types of girls.

    I agree with your categories of women (teens and 20s). If I were ever to marry, it would be a younger girl, preferably one just finishing high school. The older they get, the more corrupt and fixed in their ways. I have realized females are indeed weaker. I am a terrible sinner, most in need of grace. But why is it that there are men like you and I that have chosen to hold onto the Lord’s ways in this wicked and seductive dark age, yet most “Christian” girls do not?

    I am surprised you have identified 5 potential suitors in your past. Were they all genuine Christians that wanted to walk in the ways of the Lord? From my own experiences, I find that hard to believe. God-fearing women are extremely rare. Do not compromise on this. Many proclaim to know the Lord, but they are as unregenerate as a rock. Even the ones who know how to say all the right things. I believe the Lord taught me this lesson quite early. Girls (and men) these days can be very manipulative, if you are a godly person, they will know how to say the right things to appeal to you, things I thought only a truly regenerate Christian would know to say. No, they’ve learnt our language, they’ve been brought up with religion, that’s all. Also steer clear of all the Christian girls that love events or megachurches like Hillsong, Planetshakers or whatever else there is out there. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking they are simply lost sheep. Lost sheep don’t remain lost forever. If they are truly regenerate, their spirit will not be able to tolerate such worldliness and idolatry for long. I don’t know about the level of your spiritual discernment, but in my experience, most young church-going “Christians” are unregenerate, indeed very few find the way. If you become desperate and drop your standards, it will likely come back to get you afterwards.

    Finally, I would only ever marry a virgin. Chasity and sexual purity is sacred, and I place a high value on it. It is also a critical bond between a husband and a wife. A defiled wife will have a lesser relationship. It also shows me that she does not fear the Lord, if she is in fact a Christian (there is great doubt). If she cannot be faithful to the Lord her God that bled and died for her on that cross, who are YOU that you think she should be faithful to? As some topics on here have shown, they are also more likely to be unfaithful in the future. Now what you’ve said about a genuine repentant Christian girl is true, but it involves much greater risk, and personally I would never compromise on this.

    My advice would be to focus on the Lord, do not expect a wife, but pray for one. Now that you are enlightened of the darkness of this age, do not dwell in it, it is very depressing (for me it is a snare, also while there are truths in this blog/comments, there is also much worldly wisdom). I struggle with these truths too, but I remind myself everyday that I live for the glory of God, my wants come second (if they should come in at all).

    Where do you live by the way? I’m from Melbourne.

  103. Cail Corishev says:

    @Starviolet: When someone is being honest their words and actions usually say the same thing. This is very hard to fake for any period of time.

    No it’s not.

    @AJ Miller: Most women are actually scared of a relationship. They see men as sexual predators because that is what they pursued or let themselves be pursued by at one time or another.

    I’ve run into this mental block a couple times, and it’s a doozy. They’re scared of a relationship because they think it has to involve pain like all the ones in their past. Yet, when they find themselves drawn into one that doesn’t involve any pain, they feel like something’s missing and lose interest. No-win.

  104. Cail Corishev says:

    Kieran,

    My main advice would be to give yourself some time and be patient. The red pill is a lot to take in. Keep reading and researching. Don’t let the fact that some Game sites encourage immorality and anger scare you away from the good stuff. There is such a thing as Christian Game; nothing inconsistent about it at all. What non-believers may call evolutionary reproductive psychology, a Christian knows as “how God made us.” Make sure you understand that, so you can trust that you’re doing the right things with the knowledge.

    I think marriage generally works best if the man is 5-10 years older. It helps with the whole authority/submission thing, and it matches up their peaks of attractiveness better. If you’re the same age, then there will be a span from about age 25 to 40 when you’re becoming more attractive and she’s becoming less so. That can cause problems if you were evenly matched
    to begin with. Better to be 30 when she’s 20, and so on.

    So you don’t need to be in a hurry. Keep an eye out for unusually family-minded, traditional 19-year-olds, and even pray for one to come your way, but focus mostly on getting your own act together as a man. You’re pretty clearly beta (and that doesn’t mean sense of humor, love for
    children, artistic, and so on; it means supplicating and boring women to death) and you need to get a handle on that. It’s not quick or easy; you have to unlearn a lifetime of training.

    One bit of practical advice: don’t “ask women out.” Do interesting things, and invite worthwhile women to join you for them. It’s a subtle difference, but important.

    Another: learn to be nice, without being “nice” (a quote from David DeAngelo). You can be nice to women in a fun, teasing way without bending over backwards for them. Don’t spend money on them. That’s not to say you can’t ever buy a woman an ice cream cone, but make sure it’s spontaneous, and preferably after you’ve enjoyed her pleasant company. Rewards, not bribes, to put it in callous economic terms. But don’t do conventional dinner-and-movie dates at first, or buy conventional gifts that she expects like flowers on Valentine’s Day. Better to ask what she’s giving you.

    The truth is, a woman will never be attracted to your niceness. She’ll be attracted to your attitude, your frame of authority, your commitment to your mission in life — and then she’ll be happy to find out that you can be nice too. So don’t lead with niceness; save it as a bonus.

  105. I Art Laughing says:

    AR, when the absence of said father figure is applicable assume the worst as the woman is 99.999% like to have been raised by a combination of the State and a feminist, they are feral (like being raised by wolves).

  106. @Cail Corishev “and then she’ll be happy to find out that you can be nice too.”
    Allow me to suggest that women and happiness is a oxymoron. A womans happiness is based on “how she feels at the moment”.
    Please keep in mind a woman has a wide range of emotions and and is quite hypersenstive to them and are much like the Dow Jones stock market – up and down and subject to wides unexplainable swings.
    Unless a women is trained by her parents to navigate these swings- she will do damage to herself as well as those around her for momentary pleasure.

  107. Joe Commenter says:

    As men we have all had the choice between the hot babe drama queen and the plain jane girl who’s gonna love you and worship the ground you walk on. So which one did you choose?

    As much as I hate the idea that quality guys gets no traction w/ the females. I can’t help but think that the females have the same quality problem as the men. The HB10 passes the boner test. But will ruin your life. The nice girl HB5 gives you a weaker boner. But she is sweet has morals, is not bat shit crazy and loves you so much she would do anything for you. The HB10 brings the pain. The HB5 brings the peace. Hell sometimes you get lucky and you get the HB7 that is sweet.

    It’s all about trade offs. LTR’s get a lot easier if you choose wisely.

  108. Martian Bachelor says:

    greyghost, great story! I would have thought he was a little too old to be on their radar screens, kinda like the Beatles were for girls my age way back when.

    But they’re right, and you’re right. The latest video clip from Bieber Land I saw basically had him playing the media cliche of a man going through a midlife crisis, and getting in touch with his inner thug (leather jacket, black sports car, hot babes). At least that was my first thought.

  109. TFH says:

    Women will ALWAYS see themselves as the victim, because they are biologically designed for this. There is no amount of arguing that will change this. You might as well attempt to change other major aspects of female psychology. It will not happen.

    Of course, there is this 28-year-old Canadian man, Toban Morrison, who decided to bypass the riskiest and most expensive component of the process, and hired a surrogate in India to become a father without being legally bound to a woman.

    http://photogallery.thestar.com/1038282

    If MRAs actually knew anything about how to get under the enemies’ skin, they would be posting this all over the place, so that women get hysterical about a man who has managed to avoid being a slave to a woman…

    Plus, while extremely few men would ever do this, there would be 1000x men who at least are *aware* that this choice exists, and will take less mistreatment from women.

    Again, for each rare man who does what Toban Morrison did, another 1000 being aware of it will change their behavior, which thus changes the dynamics of male-female interaction.

    If you find what Dalrock wrote about the be unjust to men, post this Toban Morrison link everywhere.

    Also post this link from PMAFT, who found a TV ad for a clinic advertising surrogacy services to single men :

    http://www.antifeministtech.info/2012/08/surrogacy-abroad-commercial/

    You can punish thousands of ‘feminists’ just by posting this link in a variety of places. Since most MRAs don’t do activism, I encourage the people here to fill the void….

  110. TFH says:

    I point out again that the divorce rate of a society depends on just one thing :

    Will the living standard of the woman go down if she divorces?

    If yes, the society has a low divorce rate (like 1960 USA)
    If no due to rigged laws, the society has a high divorce rate.

    Every other excuse, like boredom or abuse or unhaaaapiness, is merely a cover for the cold financial decision.

    I note that societies where men can toss out their wives at little or no cost, actually have LOW divorce rates, and almost all children grow up with both biological parents. Men tend to be responsible adults that way. They put their families ahead of themselves. Women clearly are not capable of this level of moral maturity.

  111. Jason says:

    @TFH,

    Would it be fairer to say, “Does the woman think her living standard will go down if she divorces?”.

    After all, the data doesn’t lie, and for most women, even in divorce insanely friendly America, their standard of living usually goes down after a divorce not up.

    Perhaps the solution in part is to require all divorce filers (the party filing, not both parties, unless they jointly file) to take a basic course in how much getting divorced will likely cost them, and how regardless of what is promised, the data clearly points to a much much greater risk of ending up in poverty after a divorce for a woman.

    Then at least they can make a better informed decision. Or at least, you can tell them to stop whining when the predictable eventuates.

  112. ybm says:

    OH HELL YEA!!!

    I get to bust out my ‘yaboymatts guide to understanding womens arguments’ guide!

    “Oh poor you!!!

    You are an ally to nobody but your own whims. You will pay lip service to being a mans ally, but you are not, you revert to the same script all women who show up on mens blogs do:

    1.) Deny the issue exists.
    2.) Create a false equivalency
    3.) Shame

    Men in this corner of the internet need not care whether women will be moved by anything. YOU are not our audience, the millions of young men who people like you would rather seen ground into dust (allbeit more acceptable dust for your whims) than be treated with a dignity afforded to men by the creator. Either climb on the bus or follow the advice of Ludacris.”

  113. Cane Caldo says:

    I wonder if Star meant to make this argument.

    That, you see, Deti, is the problem. She didn’t. It’s just natural.

    Otherwise: I saw a lot of posts on women lying that I didn’t read, because those women are uncommon, if not rare. These uncommon women aren’t ruining the lives of common men. It’s common women choosing to believe the lies of the few uncommon women; in combination with the rigged game. It’s not that women are liars. It’s that their desire for self-indulgence is unlimited, and men’s indulgence of women is unparalleled.

    This is what rule by liberal elites gets. It’s, as Dalrock says, what they intend. Combined with daycare and public school, it’s as close to Plato’s city-state orphanages as humans have ever come.

  114. DaringHart13 says:

    Great read.

    I continue to be shocked that a westernized man would even consider marriage. Why not just run through a freeway during rush hour……sure, you might not get hit, you may make it to the other side……..but the chances are slim to none.

    Unless you’re going to act like the guys from Jersey Shore, there is a very good chance she is going to, in the very least, cheat on you…..at the most, cheat, leave and rob you blind.

    Gents….take a look at an online dating site. Its BRIMMING with women from 25 to 50 who have mutiple kids at home, wanting a Brad Pitt lookalike with mucho money in the bank. Its honestly funnier than a Saturday Night Live skit!!! You read these profiles and just cry with laughter…….FACT: women are depreciating assets. They are a poor investment in this day and age. They have ZERO appreciation for anything…..its staggering to watch. The greater majority of them don’t remotely sniff of being relationship material.

    LAST MONTH: I went on a date with a woman. She is still going to school (32), works as a server…….and over dinner tells me she wants SIX KIDS! When I start laughing, she looks at me sadly and says “I know, that’s why I’ll settle for THREE”…………. I looked at her and said “what are you offering?”………….’crickets’

    You’ve seriously lost your mind to get married today.

  115. ybm says:

    Joe Commenter says:
    September 6, 2012 at 9:51 pm

    Son you gonna end up divorced and fucked over if you think there is any difference in behaviour between an HB5 and an HB10. You aren’t good enough for either one, even if you yourself were a HG10.

  116. I Art Laughing says:

    HG10 with $5 Million in the bank, then you’re just a target. I think about all those guys at the U.S. Open.

  117. Matthew says:

    “The nice girl HB5 gives you a weaker boner. But she is sweet has morals, is not bat shit crazy and loves you so much she would do anything for you.”

    This is no longer a good bet. I chose an HB5 in the mid ’90s, and I still got burned. You must severely and drastically reduce the pool of candidates to do better:

    * her parents must both be on their first marriage, with no children outside that marriage
    * pay attention to her sisters’ moral character, both younger and older
    * push her around a lot, both figuratively and literally. If she doesn’t enjoy it, NEXT.

  118. Cail Corishev says:

    @Joe Commenter: As men we have all had the choice between the hot babe drama queen and the plain jane girl who’s gonna love you and worship the ground you walk on. So which one did you choose?

    That’s one of the big lies. Plenty of guys have passed up the head cheerleader, figuring she was out of their league, and gone for the plain girl, thinking she’d be normal — and grateful. They get burned just as badly — maybe worse, since it comes as more of a surprise.

    The plain Jane is just as hypergamous at heart as the hot babe, and is just as likely to be drama-crazy. She might not be as practiced at it, not having had as many opportunities, but she’ll catch up in a hurry as soon as she gets comfortable in a relationship. She’s certainly not going to worship you because you deigned to marry a plain girl. That might be logical, but logic is irrelevant. She’s actually more likely to look down on you because you couldn’t get a hotter woman.

    There’s an Internet meme where you have a picture of some incredibly hot babe, and a caption that reads, “Somewhere there’s a guy who is sick of her shit.” Maybe there should be a complimentary one, with a picture of a hideous woman and a caption reading, “Somewhere there’s a guy she thinks isn’t good enough for her.”

    Life isn’t an 80s teen romance movie, and the plain girls aren’t made of sugar and spice. Beauty isn’t inversely proportional to virtue.

  119. I Art Laughing says:

    The problem with solipsism is this, as soon as AB 4.5 (average) “wins” HG10 she sets about reducing him to her underling and feels that she deserves everything she has and more. Her status is able to inflate to encompass a sense of entitlement to any privilege she has ever been exposed to. The curse of feminism.

  120. ybm says:

    One of the only things pua manage to get right is saying a guy should always set his sights as high as they can go.

    What makes a lot of Internet women really pissed off isthat the time and effort that used to be put in by 5-7 level guys to sleep with 3-5 level women is now gone, thanks to porn. Men should always ignore the plain/ugly/frumpy chick if there’s a better option. Keep the riff raff nearby for use later, but don’t bother withbthem until all avenues with better women are exhausted. Even then therenreally isn’t much use for them beyond sex, probably no more than $30 on investment an 2 hours of time before porn becomes more economical.

    Hypergamy can start cutting both ways afaik

  121. Martian Bachelor says:

    I was gonna ask what imaginary dating/mating universe Joe Commenter lived in. To be troubled by such difficult choices… Do I want to try a Ferrari or a Lamborghini?

    My dating pool looks more like the one DaringHart13 described. When I analyze the census numbers, turns out there are actually three (yes, three) single, unattached women here where I live to each single, unattached man. Sounds like nirvana, to be on the right side of the man shortage.

    The way I put it, the first is a single/divorced mom, the second needs to lose at least 40-50 lbs, and the third is in assisted living or a nursing home. Suitable for the demolition derby, but not much else.

  122. Anonymous Reader says:

    Jason
    After all, the data doesn’t lie, and for most women, even in divorce insanely friendly America, their standard of living usually goes down after a divorce not up

    What data? Obtained via what methods? Obtained by whom?

    This notion has been bandied about just like other myths – “women earn 66% of what men do”, “1 in 4 women will be raped”, and so forth.

    Pre tax vs. post tax income, just for a start…

  123. TFH says:

    Joe Commenter is a naive fool. For one thing, he assumes all 5s are ‘good people’.

    He sounds like a slimy socon pastor trying to get men to marry a church slut.

  124. Cane Caldo says:

    @AR

    I think Dalrock has a post or two confirming that divorce is sold to women on the pretense of an escalation in fortunes, but it’s actually a reduction. Their affordable lifestyle is diminished, and their mating options are reduced; e.g. they marry older, poorer men; men who need a Visa; no men want them at all; etc. Men often suffer (much ) worse in the short term, but in the long run recover better than women.

  125. TFH says:

    Feminist Hater,

    Belgium women will now start to complain about men not asking them out, I hope they just point to this little law and show them the door…

    Women don’t understand cause and effect very well. Why do you still believe that they suddenly might?

  126. Jason says:

    @AR,

    Here you go, even lefty fem loons like the Centre for American Progress agree.

    http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/news/2009/09/10/6683/unmarried-women-hit-hard-by-poverty/

    Single mothers are very likely to wind up in poverty, and divorce is quite destructive of wealth.

    That is just taken from census data.

    That women who divorce are worse off? The census data seems to indicate that, as does many of the anecdotes. Even the persistent claim of the “dead beat dad” points to women being worse off after the divorce (although the man is being blamed it doesn’t change the underlying point).

    If getting divorced is done and rewarded with cash and prizes as claimed, and that this incentivizes divorces, then popping that myth is a good idea.

    Just like the nonsense about women getting paid less for doing the same work. That one is completely untrue as well, as the data shows when you drill down a little bit.

    Are these women who divorce their husbands and “take them to the cleaners” really better off? Even if you don’t regard such behavior as an unmitigated evil (and I do regard it as such), perhaps it would make sense to educate women someone about the reality of trying to go this route. That ultimately the data points to them being generally much worse off.

    And then give them a crazy cat lady starter kit. http://iwastesomuchtime.com/on/?i=37567

  127. “Yet, should John the Baptist appear at their church somday they would have no problem snubbing and kicking him in the teeth because he is too Christian and too nice of a man. ”

    John the Baptist was a hard man. He probably would have had groupies, if he wanted them. Christ had groupies, being prepared to put up with feminine silliness. “The women who followed Him and ministered to Him”. Groupies. Not sexual, but emotional groupies.

    I can only repeat what I have said before, and some of the better women here have also said, a man can be a Christian without being a chump.

  128. TFH says:

    Dalrock,

    Yet you can’t find an ounce of empathy for men. You are profoundly devoid of human compassion.

    They just don’t see men as fully human. This is plain as day.

    Biologically, it made sense. A large number of men could die without the number of babies born going down, but even if one woman died, fewer babies would be born.

    Hence, just about every human society would gladly send 30 men to die before even one woman faced harm. That was the relative worth of a man’s life.

    And despite the supposed ‘civilized’ world we now have, it is clear that women have not evolved out of the animal kingdom. They merely reside within the civilization that men built.

  129. Matthew says:

    @HeligKo, in case you’re still reading: the Mozilla comment system at the 10-4ed blog is crap. No matter what I try, I cannot comment using it.

  130. HeligKo says:

    @Matthew – I just use the default comment system for blog.com. I haven’t messed with changing it. I know the first time people comment it almost always dumps them to spam, and I have to approve it, even though I tell it not to. I haven’t had enough comments to make me think of changing it, maybe its because they can’t. Thanks for letting me know. I will check it out. I know it works with Chrome.

  131. Retrenched says:

    Thing is, most of the 5s nowadays think they’re really 10s because they can post a picture on Facebook and immediately receive lots of likes and compliments from their beta orbiter friends. Hell, even a fat girl with a Facebook page or online dating profile will be told she’s “beautiful” or “sexy” several times in one day.

    When all the plain and even fat girls think they’re super hot, why shouldn’t a guy just go for the girls who actually are hot?

  132. Ash says:

    we should all register on the daily mail and start to spread the word on their comments sections.

  133. Opus says:

    When it comes to the Daily Mail I always find myself agreeing with the Red Ticked comments and disagreeing with the Green Ticked.

  134. greyghost says:

    a man can be a Christian without being a chump.
    Never for get that chuchian and become a christian soldier of confident faith. http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/brendans-definition-of-a-slut/#comment-52957

  135. 4stargazer says:

    Quote fail…take two.
    @van Rooinek

    Your story is similar to mine and my husband\’s except for the distance we are also 4 years apart and there was no way we could had meet without the Internet. I do have a different take on this paragraph:

    Don’t date anyone who lives more than an hour or two’s worth of travel away. You can’t build a real relationship or get to know her family and friends (or her, yours), if visiting her requires an airplane flight. Perhaps this rule could be relaxed for someone in the Australian outback or the Alaskan bush but not otherwise.

    I thinks this limit his search a lot I was 3,000 miles and 12 hours flying away. I think he can get around the meeting family and friends with the help of technology. Asking her about her friends, her Facebook account and letting talk to you and meeting them during trips is a good way to do an assessment. I had the email and phones of my future in laws when things go serious and I also started to talk to my husband’s friends around that time. He did the same is also a good indication of interest if she doesn’t ask about your friends and families and tries to contact them them she is not filtering you and/or she is just looking for the next dupe that takes her. If she really wants a serious thing she should be as careful as you are.
    Of course all this is personal choice I though I should chime in with my experience.
    Good luck in life and love.
    *back to stalking…I mean lurking* :)

  136. an observer says:

    Who reads the Daily Mail?

    Jim Hacker, the fictional character from Yes Minister explains:

    Hacker: Don’t tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: the Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

    Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

    Bernard: Sun readers don’t care who runs the country, as long as she’s got big tits.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister

  137. Opus says:

    Believe me, when I board the train (mid-morning) to go into London, my fellow women-passengers are all Daily Mail readers (I live in a posh area). These subtleties – which I think are not (?) existent in the USA , where columns are syndicated and the only exception to the regular paper is USA Today or likewise – described above from Yes Minister by An Observer gets it exactly right. Then there is The Daily Express and The Independent which appeal to yet other types (don’t ask). As for the free papers like The Metro and The Evening Standard (available from about mid-day) they are rather Mail-like. England and certainly its trains are awash with discarded newspapers.

    I do not think however that Daily Mail readers really believe a word of what they read, and papers – especially the Telegraph – seem to delight in infuriating their core readers, as you can see from the on-line comments.

    The Mail article however on this occasion is for once probably correct: Women do not want to give up their freedom to have a family. How often have I heard some woman vehemently telling me that she never wants children; exactly the same woman who a few short years later will be telling me that having a child was the best thing she ever did. It seems that women only realise they want a child when they have one, but without financial or other pressure they follow their heads and end up like that stupid lawyer (who was cruched by wooden frame) whose sad fate I described above at 3.56pm – it seemed somehow pertinent.

  138. Elspeth says:

    John the Baptist was a hard man. He probably would have had groupies, if he wanted them. Christ had groupies, being prepared to put up with feminine silliness. “The women who followed Him and ministered to Him”. Groupies. Not sexual, but emotional groupies.

    I can only repeat what I have said before, and some of the better women here have also said, a man can be a Christian without being a chump.

    True, this.

  139. JoeS says:

    @David Collard:

    I think the man’s point is that the churchy girls would play the role of Salome.

    You’re way too much of a sperg sometimes, you say offensive things.

    We need to cultivate authentic contempt for banal amorality of the western woman – when it is truly authentic and confident then we can be as genteel as we like and the rejection of the hags can only hurt us when they have powerful men acting upon their whims. That is the solution. Not impious spergish talk about Jesus Christ and John the Baptist.

  140. Feminist Hater says:

    TFH said:

    Women don’t understand cause and effect very well. Why do you still believe that they suddenly might?

    TFH, what can I say? Hope springs eternal.

  141. Douay-Rheims Bible:

    “And when they went their way, Jesus began to say to the multitudes concerning John: What went you out into the desert to see? a reed shaken with the wind?”

  142. Cail Corishev says:

    @JoeS: Not impious spergish talk about Jesus Christ and John the Baptist.

    Yes, I’d like to think that women (and men) followed them for bigger reasons than their alpha attitudes. Statements like “Christ had groupies,” though perhaps being accurate, make me wince, because I think they play into the anti-Game thinking seen often among Christians — that when we say Game is compatible with Christianity, we really mean Christianity can be defined in terms of Game rather than the other way around.

  143. Feminist Hater says:

    The fact that Jesus Christ also had the authority of God seems to go over their heads as well. What authority does a mere man have today? Oh, none I guess. Best get that thug attitude alive and kicking…

  144. Can men really not tell when a woman doesn’t love them?

    No, they can’t.

    Why? Because men want to believe that they can be happy, and sexually satisfied, and appreciated, and loved, and respected by a woman for who he is. It is men who are the real romantics, not women. But it is the grand design of hypergamy that men believe it is women who are the romantic ones.

    Hypergamy, by its nature, defines love for women in opportunistic terms, leaving men as the only objective arbiters of what love is for themselves. So yes, men can’t tell when a woman doesn’t love them, because they want to believe women can love them in the ways they think could.

    https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/women-in-love/

    Iron Rule of Tomassi #6
    Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved

    Women are incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.

    In the same respect that women cannot appreciate the sacrifices men are expected to make in order to facilitate their imperatives, women can’t actualize how a man would have himself loved by her. It is not the natural state of women, and the moment he attempts to explain his ideal love, that’s the point at which his idealization becomes her obligation. Our girlfriends, our wives, daughters and even our mothers are all incapable of this idealized love. As nice as it would be to relax, trust and be vulnerable, upfront, rational and open, the great abyss is still the lack of an ability for women to love Men as Men would like them to.

  145. The Duke from Italy says:

    [irony]..if having a wife is a good thing, God should have one too.. that’s why Jesus has never been married.. and as a Good Father, God wish not that his son will have a wife.

    Since Eve tempted Adam with the vagina (apple), the message is clear: dealing with women is not an easy task, having a wife is not a wise choice.. women are the demon foretold in the bible, covered in a religious smoke screen, who will suck literally every energy/money/time/feelings/kids/future/home/flat/hope/joy from you.. and then she will let you rotten in your despair forever.. that’s the message that bible carry inside it.. the infinite fight between good (men) and evil (women).

    Only strong men (i.e.: the thug type/alpha men) must deal with them.. since good men and women are weaks and will be kept as slaves in the humanity and die for them..

    .. and since Jesus was a beta man, who workship a religion where all should live in peace, respect each other, uphold God law, etc etc.. he finally was nailed to a wodden cross.. and die (as many beta men day each day in any dangerous job around the world)..

    God have NOT a wife.. for a reason.. God must continue to watch us high above..as an Alpha..[/Irony]

  146. Anon says:

    @Kieran – Get the book Married Man Sex Life and check out tha blog and forums. Better advice there for finding a good wife and having a happy marriage.

  147. Cane Caldo says:

    @Cail

    Statements like “Christ had groupies,” though perhaps being accurate, make me wince, because I think they play into the anti-Game thinking seen often among Christians

    You see this often? Are there any Christians here, besides me, that have widely read enough about Game to become anti-Game?

    that when we say Game is compatible with Christianity, we really mean Christianity can be defined in terms of Game rather than the other way around.

    David Collard is not your problem. It’s when Game writers try to–stupidly, and against all evidence to the contrary–recast Jesus as an alpha that I get incensed. Your problem is that Jesus Christ came to Earth as a hayseed nobody; was born into poverty; remained there; spent the bulk of His time with just men; counseled other men to forego women; redeemed full-on hookers; and remained a virgin unto His death; a death that was a sacrifice not only for the worthy alphas, but for the betas, AFCs, fat chicks, and sluts everywhere. This is the Man who professes to confound and obliterate the SMP not just in His day, but for ALL TIME.

    That is defining Christianity in terms of Game. If that bothers you, then you need to go back and re-read what you think you know.

    Before anyone jumps to the delusion that I’m impugning Dalrock in this rant, have a look at his posts “This is what a beta looks like”, and, “So you want alpha”.

  148. Some Guy says:

    @gummer451 — “There’s a lot in Ephesians for the husband to love his wife but there is nothing in there about the opposite. I was taught by the feminized churchians that this was because women “naturally love” their man and so don’t need to be commanded to love them whereas men don’t naturally love their wives so need to be told to. I now believe that is a lie and the real truth is quite the opposite. Men naturally love their wives and God is just re-enforcing the true nature of man with this command. On the other hand women naturally submit to those that they view as their superior (headship) and that submission is a sign of respect for his leadership in their lives. The one thing that kills a womans desire for her man is when she does not respect him, love really has nothing to do with it as a women can say she loves someone but has no respect for him and so exhibits all the symptoms that we see in todays marriages.”

    Wow. I thought I was up to speed on the many ways that these verses can be butchered… but even now I’m still taken in by the “women naturally love” thing.

    If what you’re saying is true… then when a wife is qualifying her husband for sex (“if you pass this love test, then you can be out of the dog house again”) she’s completely wrongheaded. If attraction is the root issue… then… it is more likely to be jump-started if she focuses on showing respect to her husband by submitting to him…? On the husband’s side… “game” is a tool to trick her into that frame on one level or another….

  149. HeligKo says:

    @gummer451 – Women do not naturally submit. This is the farthest thing from truth that could be said about women. Women naturally balk at authority. Eve taking of the fruit from the tree of knowledge was balking authority. Shit tests balk authority in a marriage. Women are naturally driven to destroy the authority of the men above them, and do so by using their feminine beauty. It is a spiritual discipline to respect, honor, and follow their husbands. Just as it is a spiritual discipline for men to love their wives. The Bible commands it because it is not the natural state of man. Redemption through Christ is required to truly do either of these things. The Bible rarely tells us to do what comes naturally. You don’t see it tell us to eat, but you do see it tell us to fast. Fasting is not natural. There are many other examples, but the idea that there are commands in the Bible that are natural and thus easy to fulfill actually taken to the next logical conclusion supports that idea of “I am not happy in my marriage, and God would want me to be happy, so God supports my divorce, infidelity, disobedience, and shaming of my husband”

  150. Martian Bachelor says:

    Since Eve tempted Adam with the vagina (apple), the message is clear: dealing with women is not an easy task, having a wife is not a wise choice.. women are the demon foretold in the bible, covered in a religious smoke screen, who will suck literally every energy/money/time/feelings/kids/future/home/flat/hope/joy from you.. (Duke of Italy)

    That’s why men invented cars:
    Cars are loyal. Women are not loyal. A car understands the vows of matrimony…Till
    death do us part..for better or for worse, for richer or poorer, for sicker or healthier.

    A car understands that. But a woman does not understand that. A car is ready when we are, as to where a woman is not ever ready. A car has financial demands, but take note the car gives back what is put into it. A woman never puts back what is put in.

    A car is dependable, a woman is not. A car never loses its figure or gets fat. A woman loses her figure and gets fat. This is why a man knows that his real love and devotion comes from his car or cars.

    My loyal car was so understanding and loving it drove me to divorce that freak I was married to, and the car was still so pretty when we got home and is still loyal. We..me and my car live happily ever after

    And let no man or tramp put asunder what I have joined with my machine and my heart.
    – “Earl”

  151. Elspeth says:

    I didn’t think DC was casting Jesus as an alpha, but rather as a leader, One who had mastery of Himself, was focused and visionary, and as such inspired devotion from men and women alike.

    Not everything is about sex and sexual attraction, but the reality is that the things that make for strong leadership also make a man attractive in the same way a feminine woman is attractive whether she is attempting to attract a mate or not.

    I will leave the men folk to work this out themselves now.

    Welcome back Dalrock, by the way.

  152. @Starviolet

    Can men really not tell when a woman doesn’t love them?

    No, because men want to believe women can actually love them in the way they think they could. Hypergamy, by it’s nature, defines love for women in opportunistic terms. Men believe that love matters for the sake of it. Women love opportunistically.

    Iron Rule of Tomassi #6
    Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.

    In its simplicity this speaks volumes about about the condition of Men. It accurately expresses a pervasive nihilism that Men must either confront and accept, or be driven insane in denial for the rest of their lives when they fail to come to terms with the disillusionment.

    Women are incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.

    In the same respect that women cannot appreciate the sacrifices men are expected to make in order to facilitate their imperatives, women can’t actualize how a man would have himself loved by her. It is not the natural state of women, and the moment he attempts to explain his ideal love, that’s the point at which his idealization becomes her obligation. Our girlfriends, our wives, daughters and even our mothers are all incapable of this idealized love. As nice as it would be to relax, trust and be vulnerable, upfront, rational and open, the great abyss is still the lack of an ability for women to love Men as Men would like them to.

  153. HeligKo says:

    @Rollo – All right, I keep hoping your rule #6 is wrong, but it hasn’t proven to be. So is the big lie that men miss not that women can provide this, but that we don’t invest this energy into fellow men? That we don’t find men we can be vulnerable with, so that we are emotionally prepared for the trials that women will create in our homes. Is this why so many women tend to isolate their husbands or boyfriends from their male friends early on in marriage or dating?

  154. All right, I keep hoping your rule #6 is wrong, but it hasn’t proven to be.

    Which is exactly the source of Starviolet’s confusion. Women’s solipsism prevents them from realizing that men even would have a differing concept of love than how a woman perceives love. Thus her question, “can men really not tell when a woman doesn’t love them?”

    I don’t necessarily think it’s a ‘big lie’, it’s just a lack of mutuality on either gender’s concept of love. If it’s a ‘lie’ at all it’s one men prefer to tell themselves.

  155. You see this often? Are there any Christians here, besides me, that have widely read enough about Game to become anti-Game?
    —————————————————————–
    Cane, with all due respect man…..really with this question?

  156. The Duke from Italy says:

    @Elspeth

    Jesus was not born to be a leader.. GOD is the leader..

    Leader usually stay in the “war room” where women bring them news from the frontline while soldiers (betas) who had mastery of themself, was focused and visionary, and as such inspired devotion from men and women alike, are in the battlefield to get nailed by bullets.. exactly what happened to Jesus.. so God is a leader.. not Jesus..

    “Not everything is about sex and sexual attraction”

    Funny that this assumptions comes from a woman, usually women spend a lot of time to conceive their apperance with tons of make ups to be beautiful, sensual and sexy, well.. i guess that you, Elspeth, don’t use makeup at all so you may freely tell us this statement, but i invite you to see the other women.. you may be inspired to see the true once for all..

    “.. but the reality is that the things that make for strong leadership also make a man attractive in the same way a feminine woman is attractive whether she is attempting to attract a mate OR NOT.”

    so in other words.. men must have those qualities inside.. or die trying.. while women have the same opportunity just because they are women…cooOOool…oh! don’t forget that, despite your actractiveness OR NOT, men MUST always do the first move..

    I will leave the women folk to work this out themselves now.

    @Rollo

    Amen.

  157. Feminist Hater says:

    I’m Anti changing my love and fear of God in order to pander to the needs of women so that I can have a wife and mother for my future children, that won’t up and leave when she gets a little bored. I’m not alive to pander to the imperative of women. I’m not afraid of truth though, just a bit sick and tired of being told I need to change into some arrogant, authoritarian playboy to play on a woman’s imperative need to be treated like a child.

    I’ve always been fine with a certain level of authority in marriage, so that decisions are made and things at least go forwards and not backwards; and that both the man’s and the woman’s needs are met. Not their ‘want’s, their ‘needs’. I also admit that this authority is needed for the growth of the children, their mental, physical and spiritual growth, which is entwined in the way their parent’s interact with each other. A good, healthy dose of male authority goes a long way here.

    What gets my goat is that a lot of comments from both DC and Elsbeth directly forget the current marriage climate. Supposedly, their marriages are so great that they have no worries. I can understand Elsbeth’s nonchalant behaviour, as the power rests in her hands, not her husband’s. She will disagree of course, put another ‘LOL’ at the end of her post and all is well in her life. The rest of us can go to hell as far as they’re concerned.

    To DC, if you’re not manly enough, like him, then divorce and betatude is your reward. Just be a Christian man, not a chump, is his motto. Be too much of a ‘man’ will get you thrown in prison, but no worries, just learn to balance this and be a proper Christian…

    Blah, blah, blah, blah. Same old boring story, women are incapable of any agency, thus it falls to you, as the man, to perfectly navigate their emotional storms and dock the ship, the relationship ship that is, perfectly in the harbour of marital bliss. FUCK! Anyone else feel a bit put out by that? Or am I alone here?

  158. The Duke from Italy says:

    @Feminist Hater

    im in!
    Now ..look into the wicked heart of woman.. If you can justify destroying someone because you “fell out of love”, then you never truly loved that person..Love is not selfish.

    and about Elsbeth’s reply..It’s been an almost universal rule of civilization that girls became women simply by reaching physical maturity, but boys had to pass tests. They needed to demonstrate courage, physical prowess or mastery of the necessary skills. The goal was to prove their competence as protectors and providers. Today, however, with women moving ahead in our advanced economy, husbands and fathers are now optional, and the qualities of character men once needed to play their roles—fortitude, stoicism, courage, fidelity—are obsolete, even a little embarrassing for most of women..

    I have really begun to think that most women are so thoroughly poisoned and morally corrupted that they are beyond correction or repair,for example.. women who destroy their good men in divorce court are just children throwing a tantrum, and using the legal system to do it.

    Thank God I never married one of those beasts.. and im sick and tired to deal with them for LTR or STR.. it’s simply a matter of gaming them or being gamed.. and guess what? in each situation she’s the one who is always the victim.. roflmao!

  159. AnonS says:

    @Kieran

    Yeah I know where you are at. The Red Pill is your best path forward. The second biggest step you can take is to reexamine what you think about God “confirming” decisions. I was stuck in that mindset for years until the quality of the arguments and evidence pulled me out of it. Your decisions should be guidance by your gifts, not trying to find a “calling” or “confirmation of God’s will”. This is off-putting to hear but I’ve had to repent and come to see that that is the true Biblical model.

    This PDF could change the trajectory of your life, look into this sooner rather than later.

    Stand to Reason: Decision Making and the Will of God

    http://claypeck.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/decision.pdf

  160. deti says:

    @ Matthew:

    “push her around a lot, both figuratively and literally. If she doesn’t enjoy it, NEXT.”

    And sex her vigorously and often. Have the nice soft sex. But then turn her over and jackhammer her. Roissy’s Fourteenth Commandment: “F**k her good”

  161. Cane Caldo says:

    @empath

    I didn’t know for sure where you stood.

  162. Dalrock says:

    @Starviolet

    @dalrock – it was deti who made the original comparison between the woman who falls for the player and the man who can’t tell that he isn’t loved. See his comment at 3:23.

    You are still (intentionally?) missing the larger picture. The OP was about how:

    1) The marriage laws are designed to be gamed by women.
    2) Women are very open about having done this.
    3) The women who do this don’t think they are doing anything wrong, and in fact see themselves as victims.
    4) Women in general deny the issue or (in your case) deflect and minimize it.

    To recap:

    1) The system has no protection for men against being gamed this way.
    2) Women tell us very openly that they are in fact doing this.
    3) Women file the vast majority of divorces, and academic research confirms that the ability to profit from divorce is what drives this.
    4) When confronted with this, women (in general) deny the issue, blame men, or demand further proof.

    Contrast this to the complaints by women that men were gaming the system by using up their wife’s most beautiful years and then trading her in on a younger model. Men were very troubled by this, and supported divorce reform even though the data shows that this is not now nor has it been in recent history (past few hundred years) a common problem. Divorce rates were extremely low prior to the 1960s, so it can’t have been common prior to then. Even then the available data shows that women were the initiators of divorce the vast majority of the time. Following the divorce revolution women continue to initiate the vast majority of divorces, and data on divorce rates by age of wife shows that divorce when wives are older is extremely uncommon. The older the wife, the less likely the couple is to divorce.

    Compare the two:

    1) Women come to men with an extremely uncommon problem, men empathized with women and pushed for very strong “reforms” to correct the perceived problem.

    2) After their own show of (excessive) good faith, men come to women with a rampant issue, one which all the data points to being a real problem to both men and children. Women are unconcerned about what is happening to very large numbers of men and children, and worry instead about how they might one day be mistreated by a man.

  163. HeligKo says:

    @AnonS – Interesting read. I scanned it pretty quick, but the conclusions it seems to be leading to are the same as the ones I have been wrestling with. I have a hard time doubting that God continues to have influence in this worlds, but the process of my family breaking up also makes it hard for me to believe God has a very specific plan for my life. It doesn’t add up that God’s plan would be for me to get divorced, when divorce is considered evil. There is so much cherry picking of verses in how the church teaches, that we don’t get the whole picture. Again there is this sense that if I just do the magic incantation right then everything will work out, and if it doesn’t work out, then we have our evidence that you didn’t do it right. As I wrestle with these ideas, I have to come to the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence that God is a creator, and he is active in this world, but he does not choose to influence the day to day of life of the vast majority of human interaction. We have been told how to do it, and it is up to us to make it work. I am still wrapping my head around these things, but I have come to the conclusion that my understanding of God has been dramatically wrong.

  164. van Rooinek says:

    Are there any Christians here, besides me, that have widely read enough about Game to become anti-Game?

    NO, and we never will be, because Game answered the ONE question that the Church could not, or would not All together now — “Why do so many women — including Christian women — reject good men in favor of jerks?”

    Game — the understanding and adapting to female hypergamy — answered this question. You already had your own whole gigantic thread on this topic, you were proved wrong like, 50 times over…. LET IT GO. I’m sorry that you used Game sinfully (just as some people use wine sinfully), and I’m glad you eventually repented of that, but you need to snap out of your solipsism and realize that for most people, Game, like wine, is a divine GIFT, not a curse. Praise God for the red pill!

  165. Jeremy says:

    Starviolet says on September 6, 2012 at 4:33 pm

    …Kind of like how some men pretend that the prostitute really cares about them and would have sex with them for free but she needs to make a living…

    That sentence right there told me all I need to know about how well you understand men. You don’t, by the way. Men don’t visit prostitutes for their emotional needs, they would never do this. Men visit prostitutes because their physical needs are not being met. Ask any prostitute why their regulars visit them, and 100% of the time the answer is, “well their wives/gfs/SOs never want to do *this thing* to with them, but of course I’m a pro _____….”

    Men visit prostitutes because manipulative women in relationships hold back sex and/or physical exploration of intimacy as a form of currency. This effectively forces the man to use hard currency to get what he needs elsewhere. That’s a fact, and no amount of mind-warping by feminists is going to change it.

  166. Joseph says:

    @Dalrock

    I’m not sure starviolet is absolving women of all the wrong doing that occurs on their side of marriage, but there is one thing that men desperately need to glean from her example. No matter how unfair the circumstances, hopeless the situation, awful the consequences, no man had better expect sympathy from a woman when it comes to how a marriage ends. You may as a man find a woman who does sympathize with you, but do not, and I repeat, DO NOT EXPECT IT. It is not there for you. If something goes wrong in your relationship, you alone bear the responsibility for it in the eyes of women.

    Women automatically take the side of another woman over a man especially in situations where they don’t have the entire context. They default to protecting their own and only turn from this position when the entirety of the situation comes to light.

  167. @ Joe Commenter,

    “The HB10 passes the boner test. But will ruin your life. The nice girl HB5 gives you a weaker boner. But she is sweet has morals, is not bat shit crazy and loves you so much she would do anything for you. The HB10 brings the pain. The HB5 brings the peace.”

    ???

    Big Taylor Swift fan are we? I was thinking at some point you’d break into the lyrics of “You Belong to Me.” Filtering pop culture is a good way to strain out the blue pills.

  168. deti says:

    Kieran:

    I’d like to weigh in. I’m a Christian but not a manosphere expert.

    1. You probably won’t get any useful instruction or help from church when it comes to dating or meeting women.

    2. You definitely won’t get any useful instruction or help from women either. Do not take any advice from any women about sex, dating or female behavior. Advice from women is totally unhelpful to betas. Advice from women is almost always “be nice, and be yourself”. This is designed for alphas who women already find attractive, and from whom women seek signals of attainability and commitment.

    3. Two crucial things you MUST understand: frame (see par. 6 below) and female hypergamy (see par. 7).

    3. On your statement that “lust in your heart is adultery”: Remember what Christ was talking about there. He was talking about men and women keeping themselves and their lusts in check, and reminding them of their sin natures. That Scripture does NOT have the meaning which today’s “theologians” and “Bible scholars” (Christian liberals and feministst) ascribe to it now. Jesus’ pronouncement does NOT mean a man who lusts or looks at porn or undresses a woman with his eyes is cheating. It does NOT mean a man who engages in such behavior has committed adultery and therefore has given his wife Biblical grounds for divorce (or any ground for divorce). You have got to get past this unbiblical teaching and throw it in the dustbin where it belongs.

    4. Your default position must be not to get married. It might be different in Oz, but in the US the situation is so bad that I would not recommend any man legally marry here or live in the US legally married. The risks are simply too high and the rewards simply not great enough to justify the risk.

    5. If you marry, you must go for a woman with as low a partner count as possible. A virgin is ideal but rare. The lower the partner count, the better. Women lie about their partner counts. Be aware of this.

    6. Frame is everything. You set the frame. You lead her, she submits to you. She steps into your life; you don’t step into hers. She fits herself into your life at your invitation and if you decide it is to your benefit. You do not try to work your way into her life. Your time, work, schedule, desires, wants and needs are more important than hers. She submits to your frame. You do not submit to hers. She never gets to set the frame, for when she does, she, not you, controls the relationship and its direction.

    7. Female hypergamy, broadly stated, is the female desire for the best man she can get at any given time. She will evaluate you to determine whether you are the best. If you are, she will remain with you. If not, she will first test you; then grow uncomfortable, then panic, then fall out of love and seek to replace you. You cannot eliminate hypergamy, you can only really be aware of it and manage it.

    8. When dating any woman, keep your monetary and time investment to a minimum. Don’t reveal too much too early. Don’t put yourself out there. Keep on an even keel emotionally. Don’t show her a wide range of emotions. Don’t qualify yourself to her. Make her qualify herself to you. Ask yourself silently: What does she offer me? What does she bring to the table? Why should I invest my time, money, and resources in this woman?

    9. Spin plates. Don’t date one woman exclusively. Cultivate prospects. You don’t owe a woman exclusivity until you agree to marry. An LTR is not a mini-marriage. Either participant in an LTR can end it immediately by simply saying so. She wouldn’t think twice about ending it if such is to her advantage. Why would you take a different approach?

    10. Be ready to walk away. If it isn’t working out, you don’t like her, she is mistreating you, you thought she was a good prospect but you know her better and you see she isn’t; or you just don’t want to see her anymore, then break it off. Just say “I don’t want to see/date you anymore.” That’s all you have to say. Don’t mealymouth around about it. Just say it. And then walk away.

  169. AnonS says:

    HeligKo, yes I’ve had to go through a similar process. I think like our own children, God wants us to take initiative and created us with free will. That God keeps a distance because holiness is the primary attribute of his nature, anytime he is closely involved in history it is matched with people dropping dead due to God’s holiness not abiding disrespect. That he equips us and is a present help in times of trouble but isn’t trying to whisper his true plan to people, he is always heard when he wants to be heard. We don’t have to worry about getting new directions when we already have the complete mission parameters, and we have to do the heavy intellectual lifting of dealing with the nuances and problem areas as part of our growth.

    Great sources include:
    Stand to Reason
    Please Convince Me
    William Lane Craig

  170. Jacquie says:

    @ Rollo

    It is not the natural state of women, and the moment he attempts to explain his ideal love, that’s the point at which his idealization becomes her obligation. Our girlfriends, our wives, daughters and even our mothers are all incapable of this idealized love.
    Women’s solipsism prevents them from realizing that men even would have a differing concept of love than how a woman perceives love.

    If it is beyond what a woman is capable of, therefore even if a woman recognizes this incapacity in herself, is there no way to compensate? What if a woman truly desires to try to move beyond this? Does she just consider it a hopeless matter and do nothing? Or is it something she should strive for continuously with the hope that she can at least move somewhat closer to this idealized love? Is it even too much for her to comprehend?

  171. Women automatically take the side of another woman over a man especially in situations where they don’t have the entire context. They default to protecting their own and only turn from this position when the entirety of the situation comes to light.
    —————————————————————————————-
    Protecting their own is secondary. They do this because they get empathy, direct or vicarious, and hey get revenge, direct or vicarious or control if not revenge, again direct or vicarious.

    It is not a choice to support team woman I am convinced as much as it reaps the most of the things they crave, and minimizes their own accountability by minimizing that of others. The self interest is too great for it to be even as altruistic (cough) as looking out for the sistas

  172. AnonS says:

    I wonder, do woman walk about with an idealized submission/respect mindset? They want to receive it but are only capable of giving it. How men mite want to receive love but are only capable of giving it.

    Men form circles with the idea of bonds of brotherhood and brotherly love, which fills a lower level need for this. Women form pep squads for each other to tell each other they are the best.

    I guess modern individuals get into trouble when they try to move from their friend circle to marriage and have to reverse their expectations. While older generations could have ties to a larger family and village network with older people and would have a more accurate perspective going into marriage.

    I think all elements of philosophy and environment play a part in this.

  173. HeligKo says:

    @Jacquie – In very few modern marriages, but not too many generations ago women would dedicate themselves to their husbands. They would submit to his authority and they would serve him. They would choose to respect their husbands. The feelings follow the actions if a person is making choices. If they are simply responding to the their feelings, then they will have a mess. Though the actions are different for men, the same holds true. A man who sets out to lead and care for his wife will love her. The feelings will follow the actions, but if they allow their emotions to lead and simply respond to them they too will have a mess. Men are less prone to follow their emotions, but when they do its painfully obvious and properly viewed as weakness.

    I see my mother do this with my father, even as he dies of cancer. She has submitted her authority to him. She chooses to continue to respect him, even as he becomes weaker and weaker. Her love for him becomes stronger as this requires more effort. She very much is following the Biblical model for marriage with him and it works. Its hard though.

    Towards the end of my marriage I chose to do a lot of things that were silly, but among the things I did is change how I think about my wife. I took the leadership role. I cared for her, so much as I could. These were all too late, if they would have ever worked to affect her at all. What they did for me was increase my love for her. Squash much of my anger over the situation while we were still together. In a situation where she seeking to get out and doing all she could to force me to give her a visible and public reason to do so, I fell in love with her again. Strangely this also made it easier when she left. When she said she was getting an apartment in the city, I made it clear how that was going to go. I was not saddened by it at the time. At least not for her, my kids were a different story. I don’t love her anymore, but the leadership in my marriage as we head to the finality of it still is effective. She responds to me better as an adversarial leader than she did as a supplicating husband.

  174. Martian Bachelor says:

    I’m not afraid of truth though, just a bit sick and tired of being told I need to change into some arrogant, authoritarian playboy to play on a woman’s imperative need to be treated like a child. (Feminist Hater)

    “Bimbo wrangler” or just plain “tom-cat” could be alternative job titles.

    It’s like during the convention speeches last night, I kept expecting one of them to just come out and say it: “Ask not what your woman can do for you, ask what you can do for your woman owner”.

    “Game” is like some training based, back-to-work program — for men (only). Their efforts would be better spent elsewhere. I don’t want no lemons, and I don’t want no lemonade.

  175. @Jacqui, @Deti

    I believe women are as responsible for managing their hypergamous impulses as men are for managing their polygamous impulses. Each sex has a different struggle to remain chaste.

    The problem arises because men’s struggles with polygamous tendencies are so well known, so widely excoriated and condemned, and everybody is so painfully aware of them, whereas women’s struggles with their hypergamous impulses is a Terra Incognita, a Dark Continent of lusts and passions unguessed of in the typical Christian environment.

    Add to this that serial monogamy is the default marriage stance in the [wider] Church today. Serial monogamy is OK. Christ approves of it! Here you have a recipe for disaster. Serial monogamy is the way hypergamy manifests itself, so the [wider] Church doesn’t believe women have a problem. Since parallel polygamy for men is the natural correspondence for serial monogamy for women, everyone is piling on the guys.

    Divorce has to go, or at least make it like the Orthodox church does it. A 2nd marriage is like a funeral service. No receptions allowed on the parish property.

  176. deti says:

    @ FeministHater, 9:58 am:

    “I’m Anti changing my love and fear of God in order to pander to the needs of women so that I can have a wife and mother for my future children, that won’t up and leave when she gets a little bored. *** I’m *** just a bit sick and tired of being told I need to change ***.

    “I’ve always been fine with a certain level of authority in marriage, so that decisions are made and things at least go forwards and not backwards; and that both the man’s and the woman’s needs are met.”

    I know you’re familiar with my story. I guess my answer to this is simply that I have resolved in my own head and heart that I can walk away from my wife if I have to do it. A few years ago I probably would have put up with increasing levels of disrespect or possibly even an affair. Those are out of the question now.

    I’ve told my wife I won’t put up with her disrespect. SHe’ll be called out on it every time she does it, right then and there. I won’t do any further changing for my marriage. I won’t make any further concessions for my marriage. I have already conceded enough. We have a pretty good life in which she has some of what she wants and all of what she needs. That is sufficient. If she decides it is not sufficient, we can end it. If she cheats, it’s simply game over, no further discussion necessary.

    I guess anyone reading this post can call it instilling dread if they want. But I’ve found that for many women to appreciate what they have, there has to be some danger (always implied, rarely explicit) that they could very well lose what they have. There has to be some undercurrent that all her good fortune could be reversed at my command.

    It is as if sometimes I deal with a primary school child, using incentives and disincentives as punishment and deterrence: “If you do X, then Y (adverse consequence) will happen.”

  177. AnonS says:

    Great comments here.

    Maybe the Church crowd is wrong about Jesus being cast as the bride-groom and the Church being cast as the bride. They always paint it as Jesus is the one “pursuing us”.

    Perhaps it is because God loves us and we can’t return it in the same way. That when the Church says “we love you Jesus”, he responds “if you love me, follow my commands. And remember that not everyone that says ‘Lord Lord’ will enter my kingdom, depart from me you breakers of the law.” The same way a husband should ignore when his wife says “I love you” and look at her submission.

    That Jesus sets the frame of the mission and invites us to join, and if we don’t we are left on our own and are expected to follow after. Which is the same thing that happens in Song of Songs.

  178. Team-Red says:

    Rationalization hamster running on turbo

  179. @Jacquie, like I was telling HeligKo, it’s more a lack of mutuality on either gender’s concept of love. Starviolet’s question about whether a man can determine when a woman doesn’t love him goes much deeper than she’s aware of. I think a lot of what men go through in their blue pill beta days – the frustration, the anger, the denial, the deprivation, the sense that he’s been sold a fantasy that no woman has ever made good upon – all that is rooted in a fundamental belief that some woman, any woman, out there knows just how he needs to be loved and all he has to do is find her and embody what he’s been told she will expect of him when he does.

    So he finds a woman, who says and shows him that she loves him, but not in the manner he’s had all this time in his head. Her love is based on qualifications and is far more conditional than what he’d been led to believe, or convinced himself, love should be between them. Her love seems duplicitous, ambiguous, and seemingly too easily lost.

    So he spends his monogamous efforts in ‘building their relationship’ into one where she loves him according to his concept, but it never happens. It’s an endless tail-chase of maintaining her affections and complying with her concept of love while making occasional efforts to draw her into his concept of love. So when she falls out of love with him he literally doesn’t know that she no longer loves him. His logical response then is to pick up the old conditions of love she had for him when they first got together, but none of that works now because they are based on obligation, not genuine desire. Love, like desire, cannot be negotiated.

    It took me a long time, and was a very tough part of my own unplugging when I finally came to terms that what I thought about love and how it’s conveyed isn’t universal between the genders. It took some very painful slap-in-the-face doses of reality for this to click, but I think I have a healthier understanding of it now. It was one of the most contradictory truths I had to unlearn, but it fundamentally changed my perspective of the relations I have with my wife, daughter, mother and my understanding of past girlfriends.

    If it is beyond what a woman is capable of, therefore even if a woman recognizes this incapacity in herself, is there no way to compensate? What if a woman truly desires to try to move beyond this? Does she just consider it a hopeless matter and do nothing?

    I don’t think it’s necessarily impossible, but it would take a woman to be self-aware enough that men and women have different concepts of their ideal love to begin with, which is, improbable. The biggest hurdle isn’t so much in women recognizing this, but rather in men recognizing it themselves. So, hypothetically, yes you could, but the problem then becomes one of the genuineness of that desire. Love, like desire, is only legitimate when it’s uncoerced and unobligated.

    Since I’m posting this on Dalrock’s thread, I should also point out the parallels this ‘genuineness’ has with our relationship with God. God doesn’t want ‘luke warm’ believers (He spits ‘em out of his mouth if memory serves), he wants genuine, organic desire. God doesn’t want preprogrammed robots, or faith from the barrel of gun, because it’s not real Love unless there’s a choice to desire or not to. Fear, coercion, obligation, none of those prompt real desire. God wants us to love Him because we have a desire for Him, not because “we’d better or else.”

  180. Paul says:

    Solipsism and Team Woman.

    The inherent nature of solipsism is that you look at everything in relation to you. Team woman exists because a woman can identify with another woman, ‘hey, that could have been me!’ It is not that women are so much sticking together, or sticking up for each other (that’s a guy thing, and we’re projected that onto them in this context in my opinion). It is not even really empathy for the other, so much that as a solipsist everything is about me or in relation to me, and so something happening to a women (who is like me) can/could/will happen to me. So a woman will always identify with the other woman, because that’s all she’s capable of, because she sees it happening to her. So no matter if the woman involved is abusive and controlling, and the man involved her son or brother, her nature instinctively puts her in the place of the other woman. Except were she in that position, of course she wouldn’t have done that, which leads to NAWALT whenever anything happens with regards to other women, which really means I’m a woman and I’m not like that. That’s why men won’t get sympathy from women, period, generally speaking, they can’t put themselves in our shoes or identify with us.

  181. Kieran says:

    @Cane:

    You see this often? Are there any Christians here, besides me, that have widely read enough about Game to become anti-Game?

    I can’t say I’ve read widely enough about Game, but I am very sceptical of some of the arguments. My main issues are:

    1. Game does not start with Biblical concepts of humanity, masculinity and femininity. [Note: Blithely asserting that Gen 3 teaches that women are “hypergamous” does not constitute a proper argument that Game is Biblical.]

    2. It needs to be eschatological. This life is a fleeting moment, and all marriages are temporary (there’s no marriage in the life to come.)

    3. It needs to be Christological. Paul completely redefines marriage, basing it on Christ as the bridegroom and the Church as the bride. Christ demonstrates his headship in giving his life up for us, the bride, that doesn’t deserve him. To have proper authority means to be a proper servant. At no point, ever, did Christ’s bride ever remotely deserve to have him — the church was the most slutty and unfaithful bride imaginable, but this did not dissuade him. Indeed, he washed the bride so he could present her blameless before God. That is real love and what it really means to be a husband — something often missed in the discussion of Game.

    4. There seems to be a very defeatist maxim that “women can’t control their biology.” At best this is just a cynical defence mechanism that we might use to guard ourselves from loss, but at worst it is a total denial of the power of the gospel. How could we think the gospel is enough to save even the most hardened sinner and transform their life in the Spirit, yet maintain that women are beyond this? We must be wary to avoid hypocrisy, brothers — it is one thing to seek out a chaste and God-honouring woman, but another thing entirely to coldly dump someone once we find out they’ve had a lot of sex before — none of us can claim to be in any less need of salvation, and as God said to Peter, “do not call unclean what I have made clean.”

    5. It needs to take into account passages from Genesis to Revelation, looking at the strengths and weaknesses, roles and relationships of men and of women. The Bible presents a rich set of ideas from many angles. It’s hard to put it all together, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.

    [Note: I am not saying that Game is not useful as a tool. I am not so much sceptical of its effectiveness but rather it’s justification.]

    By the way, I’m planning to start writing some of these things up on a blog; the task of looking at key passages and finding what is and what is not Biblical about Game. Cane, do you have a blog, or would you like to contribute in some way?

  182. Jacquie says:

    Thank you for the responses @ Rollo, @HeligKo, @ Mule Chewing Briars
    Good information and much to think on.

  183. Kieran says:

    Wow, lots more comments in the time it took me to write that. I’m really enjoying this discussion, guys. Thanks to everyone who’s addressed my questions — I’m sure I have a lot of pondering to do.

  184. Feminist Hater says:

    Kieran, sounds much the same as Churchianity to me. Be a servant to slutty women because that is what Jesus does. If you could just point to the part in the Bible where Jesus calls men to marry sluts. Forgiveness is one thing, marriage is another and I don’t see any reason one would want to marry a slut, former slut or born again ‘virgin’.

  185. Kieran says:

    @ FH

    Thank you for dismissing my entire line of reasoning with a straw man. I did not say any of that.

  186. Feminist Hater says:

    To have proper authority means to be a proper servant. At no point, ever, did Christ’s bride ever remotely deserve to have him — the church was the most slutty and unfaithful bride imaginable, but this did not dissuade him. Indeed, he washed the bride so he could present her blameless before God. That is real love and what it really means to be a husband

    How could we think the gospel is enough to save even the most hardened sinner and transform their life in the Spirit, yet maintain that women are beyond this? We must be wary to avoid hypocrisy, brothers — it is one thing to seek out a chaste and God-honouring woman, but another thing entirely to coldly dump someone once we find out they’ve had a lot of sex before…

    I’m not dismissing your argument entirely, just the part above. Could you please then explain what exactly it is you expect men to do when you say, ” but another thing entirely to coldly dump someone once we find out they’ve had a lot of sex before” and “That is real love and what it really means to be a husband”?

    Forgiveness? Fine, that’s all well and good. However, we’re talking marriage, divorce and the consequences of such actions. Pre-marital sex, frivolous divorce and the Church that enables this behaviour is the core of the problem, not forgiveness. Ask the divorced men on this here forum how much ‘forgiveness’ they got from their Church, ex-wives, children, the State and the Judges in divorce court?

  187. deti says:

    “At no point, ever, did Christ’s bride ever remotely deserve to have him — the church was the most slutty and unfaithful bride imaginable, but this did not dissuade him. Indeed, he washed the bride so he could present her blameless before God. That is real love and what it really means to be a husband — something often missed in the discussion of Game.”

    It’s true that the Bride did not deserve Christ. Only by submitting to Christ does the Bride become such.

    Christ also made it clear that those who were stiff necked, refused to submit, remained in their sin and refused repentance, are not His Bride and will not see Him in Heaven and will be eternally separated from Him.

    Only those who submit to His Lordship are His Bride.

    Thus, only those women who can properly take on a feminine submissive role should be considered marriageworthy. Most sluts don’t fit that bill because they are not submissive but did what was right in their own eyes.

  188. ybm says:

    Feminist Hater says:
    September 7, 2012 at 1:45 pm

    most men don’t arrive around here until their mid-twenties. And the reality of anglo women is that by 25 the ‘good ones’ (you and I would say the better actors) are already off the market. By 25 an anglo women who is not married is either a fucked out rosbif (and I don’t mean what happens to them in the sun) looking for a payday, or a future career grrrrrl spinster.

    Kieran has not been disillusioned yet, that seems to be something that only comes with experience with whats left of women once 25 years of age hits them.

  189. AnonS says:

    I think deti nailed it.

    @Kieran

    I think this ebook will really help you, it opened my eyes. A lot of the underlying feminist thinking of the Church today started in the 13th century.

    http://www.podles.org/church-impotent.htm

  190. deti says:

    “How could we think the gospel is enough to save even the most hardened sinner and transform their life in the Spirit, yet maintain that women are beyond this? We must be wary to avoid hypocrisy, brothers — it is one thing to seek out a chaste and God-honouring woman, but another thing entirely to coldly dump someone once we find out they’ve had a lot of sex before ***”

    I am with you on this. I believe a slut truly can reform and make herself marriageable. Most do not. Some try, but cannot. A couple of things:

    1. Slut reformation is not possible without faith. Can’t be done without true faith. I’m talking TRUE faith and REAL repentance, not “come to the altar and pray the prayer and give your life to Jesus and BE HEALED!” repentance. I mean sincere repentance, not “I go to church and sing in the choir on Sunday after I go out with my BFFs to the bars on Friday and Saturday nights and meet men” repentance. Reformation means leave it all behind, no sex and no relationships for at least a year, and learning a whole new way of life.

    2. It’s one thing to reform. It’s quite another to make herself marriageable. She will have to face a very hard reality that her reformation does not mean Andrew Assistant Pastor or Will the Worship Leader or Gary the Praise Band Guitarist or Steve Soundman will want to marry her. She still has to accept that Alpha McGorgeous and Harley McBadboy don’t care about her reformation. She’s attracted to them, but they will never marry her. She has to accept that the pool of men who will be willing to wife her up probably will not include these desirable men. She must accept that she might not meet anyone willing to marry her.

    Even though they reform, some of these women are still bad marriage bets. These unfortunates have had sex with so many different men, their Ns are so high, they are unable to pair bond. They want to; but they simply cannot do it. They cannot generate attraction for the kind of men who would be willing to marry them. These women should be dissuaded from marrying and men should avoid them. These should be left for TFH’s Sunday Morning Nightclub.

  191. deti says:

    Dalrock:

    If I use the words “butthex” or “bernankified”, will you put me in moderation?

  192. Feminist Hater says:

    I will take the Church seriously when the Church takes scripture seriously and removes all, and I do mean all, female Church leadership and restores all, and I do mean all, authority to men and men only.

  193. “At no point, ever, did Christ’s bride ever remotely deserve to have him — the church was the most slutty and unfaithful bride imaginable, but this did not dissuade him. Indeed, he washed the bride so he could present her blameless before God. That is real love and what it really means to be a husband — something often missed in the discussion of Game.”

    Real repentance is hard work. It is not remorse over the consequences of your actions. The axe being laid to the root of the trees and all of that. A sexually loose woman does not become wife material after a few tears and a Jesus-come-into-my-heart prayer (neither does a sexually loose man become husband material). The real soulwork comes after the prayer. Sometimes, yes, it includes marriage to someone you don’t ‘deserve’, and sometimes it includes a prolonged period of celibacy. Everybody’s mileage is different although the destination is the same.

  194. TFH says:

    So here is the question I ask from time to time…

    On a 1-10 scale, what is your rating of the basic morality, sense of justice, and concept of reciprocity of the average woman :

    a) Three years ago
    b) Today.

    What is it? Those who answer have often indicated a 2-3 point loss on a 1-10 scale. That is stunning, that the impression of women as a whole could fall this much….

    So what are your ratings?

  195. deti says:

    TFH:

    a. 6
    b. 3

  196. ybm says:

    Error: Divide by zero no defined value.

  197. HeligKo says:

    @TFH – I can’t say that there has been a drop. I have had conversation after conversation with women over the years, and their stances have not changed.

    Justice – Is not concrete. It varies on who it is applied to. In cases of child custody, it has always been considered unjust for a man to win unless the mother has demonstrated that she is a murderer. Most who have conceded child support or other things to the father’s of their children so that the fathers can be involved still sympathize with the woman who banged a thug and now can’t get him to pay for the kids, and think its okay to throw him in jail for not supporting a kid he never consented to.

    Reciprocity – This is a concept that women do not understand at all.

    Morality – Here is something that I don’t think has changed, but I can say with confidence that it is something that there are women who understand morality. There are far more women who relativistic in their morality than not.

  198. Kieran says:

    @ 3rd Millenium Men

    Thanks for the links. I know not all of it applies to Christians but it’s a helpful start on lots of manoshpere concepts.

    @ AJ Miller

    Thank you for your encouragement. It means a lot to me, and I appreciate the positive outlook. I myself have been blessed to witness great marriages, not without hard times of course, but marriages that have gone on to be a tremendous blessing to their families, friends, church, etc. I pray that I might have this too, but even though nothing in this life is guaranteed, I am prepared to look for someone with whom I would be willing to risk my worldly possesions, heart, and even the care of my children (though that would be the hardest thing to lose.)

    @ van Rooinek

    Thanks for the advice, cautions, and very practical tips. It occurs to me that, at least in my Christian circles, people have rarely given any of this kind of advice. It’s always been assumed that somehow we’ll just magically end up with the right people.

    @ YouHaveMyPermission

    I agree with pretty much everything you said. Indeed, we must glorify God and that is our main priority. I am prepared to remain single but would strongly prefer not to. Perhaps as I get older, more realistic about the corrupt ways of this world, and less pumped full of testosterone, I’ll be able to live with that more comfortably. In the meantime, I continue to look for a wife.

    No, only two, or possibly three, of the five potential suitors were what I would have called committed Christians. In hindsight, it was a mistake to pursue them, but I have learned a lot from that.

    I am a virgin and I expect any future bride of mine to be one too. That said, if I were to fall in love with someone and later find out they were not a virgin, I would have to weigh everything very carefully (especially their attitude regarding it.)

    I’m from SA. Nice to see some other Aussies around.

    @ Cail

    Thanks for your great tips and practical advice too. It’s odd — I’ve always found myself attracted to older women, usually because younger women differ in their interests too much to me and come across as juvenile. Having read a lot of stuff on these blogs recently, I’m beginning to see that there’s a lot of wisdom in marrying someone younger than you. In fact, many of the relationships I see around me are on shaky ground where the man is the younger of the two, and are generally going well where the man is the older of the two.

    I’m still busy trying to shake off my “nice”-ness. What’s particularly telling is that, even though with most people I keep a fairly jovial atmosphere, whenever there’s a girl I’m interested in, I suddenly start being far too considerate. Time to let the women try to find me I guess. It’s hard when you’ve been waiting so long though not to jump at those opportunities.

    @ Anon

    Thanks, I will check the book out.

    @ AnonS

    Thanks for the link. Indeed I have done much thinking about this in the past few years, and I have been fortunate to be part of a church where the teaching on this matter is Biblical. I can see how my statement that “God has confirmed that he wants me to continue serving this church” may have seemed suspect, but I can assure you that this confirmation came through; a) my unique skills and gifts and the need for them in my church at this time, b) the decisions I make, having prayed for God’s wisdom by the Spirit [Which is quite Biblical — see the latter part of I Corinthians 2].

    @ deti and others since then

    Thank you for the replies. I’ll try to get back to it tomorrow, because I don’t want to rush going through it at this time of the night.

  199. AJ Miller says:

    @TFH

    a. 3
    b. 3

    The good news is that it has been quite bad for quite a long time so there has not been much of a decline :)

    50 years ago I would say it was an 8 all-around
    40 years ago it dropped to a 6.5

    30 years ago it dropped to 5.5

    20 years ago it dropped to 5.0

    10 years ago it dropped to 4.5

    5 years ago it dropped to a 3.5

    3 years ago it dropped to 3

    I do things defnitely getting worse with no improvement in sight. Churches should be at the forefront of fighting feminism but because they are now mostly corporations they don’t want to rock the boat and go from being a megachurch where everything is lukewarm to a smallish chuch that actually stands for the Word of God.

  200. TFH says:

    deti,

    That is stunning. 3 points lost over just a couple of short years….

    Most others are similar (2-3 points lost). Most people would be greatly concerned if their reputation declined by 3 points on a 1-10 scale. Yet this is happening for womankind as a whole.

    Once many thousands of men take the red pill, the goodwill that women lose will be stunning. It is like air….. they will only notice it when it is gone….

  201. Cane Caldo says:

    @Keiran

    I have a blog.

    You and I are on the same path.

    Don’t tell van Rooinek. You’ll ruin his life from the one thing that made it worth living.

  202. TFH says:

    AJ Miller,

    OK, your process just started earlier. Most of us are under 3 years in…

    But it seems a lot of people start high (6-8), and settle to a 3…

    3 is pretty bad, which means men who see what women really are about find them to have relatively few redeeming moral qualities.

    Ask a SoCon pastor, and they will say women are 10 and men are 2.

  203. Kieran says:

    @ FH (and deti)

    Okay, just quickly, to clarify what I was saying about Christ and the church:

    1. Firstly, I do not expect men to marry anyone they feel reservations towards. I am not saying “that’s what Christ did therefore we should all go and try to find the most degenerate hussy imaginable and marry them.”

    2. My point about hypocrisy was simply that we must be careful to “remove the log in our own eye” and to “judge with righteous judgement.” Assumably if you’ve gotten to know someone well enough to the point that they confide their sexual history, you already know a lot about this persons character, and until that point you had continued to believe they could be a good wife, and I’m just saying it’s not right to ditch them without; a) careful consideration, and b) treating them gently.

    3. Forgiveness is not gauranteed from anyone, whether that be the church, the state, family, etc. The only forgiveness we can be sure of is that which we receive by accepting faith in Christ. Yes, everything has consequences, and some things in life truly suck — that’s not a good argument that these things should be avoided without exception.

    (@ deti)

    4. Of course, submission to Christ is crucial (literally). However, I strongly that the Bride ever became deserving of Christ through any submission. The history of the Church has been quite a sordid affair in many ways, and I do not think that any member of the Church could say they have fully and consistently submitted to Christ.

    5. Christ did make it clear that many will be excluded from the kingdom by their rejection of him which we see clearly in their actions. That said, there is only so far that we can go in surmising who is and who is not included or excluded by God.

    6. Furthermore, I hasten to mention Paul’s command that we only marry those in the Lord — I would advise against anyone marrying a continuingly loose and unfaithful woman, or a past but unrepentant one.

  204. ybm says:

    Kieran says:
    September 7, 2012 at 3:08 pm

    “I’m just saying it’s not right to ditch them without; a) careful consideration, and b) treating them gently.”

    This is the ‘BIG LIE’ you will have to reconcile at some point, and it will be a source of a lot of heartache for you until you do so.

    You do not owe a woman one single goddamn thing. You give willingly, but if at any point you no longer feel you can give willingly, you do not owe any woman careful consideration or gentle treatment. You would not be afforded this degree of consideration and you will be exploited if you integrate this into your being any further than it already is.

    This is the sentiment that ruins men in divorces.

  205. van Rooinek says:

    Cane: Don’t tell van Rooinek. You’ll ruin his life from the one thing that made it worth living.

    As usual, I don’t know what you’re talking about. This statement makes no sense whatsoever. I suspect that, as before, you’re making absurd and false assumptions about my life. Ho hum.

  206. Kieran says:

    * On my point 4, that should read “disagree” instead of “strongly” (I had originally written “strongly disagree” but I decided that wasn’t a fair statement.)

  207. HeligKo says:

    @Keiran

    2. It is far from hypocrisy for me, even in my own sin to judge a woman unfit for marriage to me. Its not my duty to forgive her of past transgressions, because they were not committed against me. I offer no judgement of her eternal state in Christ by judging her unfit to marry. The only time I would have need to forgive her, is if she allowed herself to marry me under the false pretenses of a low partner count and reformation that had not truly occurred. That is what I struggle with in my situation. My wife had a much higher count than she admitted to before marriage. There was much more depravity in that sexual history than she admitted to before marriage. It was also left out that she had such a preference for black/brown men that I was one of only two white men in a long list of men that she had been involved with. These are all things that would have made me walk away from the whole thing and she knew it. I was actively deceived. I am by no means a racist. The comment above is that she was unlikely sexually attracted to me, since I was not of her preferred type. She had other motives. These are things that I will have to come to place where I can forgive her for them. The wrongs perpetrated on me over the last 15 years are rooted in those dishonest things above.

    This is why any man who is brave enough to marry in this modern world should feel no regret in dismissing a woman immediately if there is anything that hints that she will not be able to bond with him.

  208. ybm says:

    HeligKo says:
    September 7, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    Can I make a wild guess that the black/brown guys she was banging weren’t the straight-A bookworm type? Probably more akin to the ‘sexy’ thug bad-boy type that pumped and dumped her?

    That says more about her behaviour than the races of the guys tbh.

  209. Cail Corishev says:

    @Kieran: What’s particularly telling is that, even though with most people I keep a fairly jovial atmosphere, whenever there’s a girl I’m interested in, I suddenly start being far too considerate.

    Yep. Been there, too many times to remember. I could be cocky and funny with my friends, with teachers, with family — but let a pretty girl walk in the room, and suddenly I turned into a tongue-tied servitor.

    I think what happens is, because A) we don’t understand women, and B) getting one is so terribly important, we think of them as a rare, wild, flighty bird. To catch one, you have to sneak up on it as slowly and non-threateningly as possible. So we put away the teasing, take any dominance out of our voice, pull back any aggressive body language, and start idling up to her, trying to project through our words and body language, “No, I’m not trying to catch you, little birdie. I don’t even really like birdies that much. I just want to hang out here under your branch and listen to you sing. You have nothing to worry about from me whatsoever.”

    Of course, they aren’t flighty birds, even if they share some qualities. We’d be better off just striding up, chest out, voice deep, and declaring our intentions. But that’s risky. She might say no — or worse, laugh. If we sneak up, and she flits away before we get close, we don’t have to take it personally — maybe she just had somewhere to go. So even when we start to learn better, it’s easy to fall back into those old “safe” ways of interacting.

  210. deti says:

    HeligKo:
    September 7, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    Cosign 100%.

    Kieran: There is a big difference between a slut being judged worthy of eternal salvation, and being judged worthy of earthly marriage to a man.

    The first is between her and God. Since God is the one who grants the salvation, He is the one who gets to judge whether she is worthy of salvation.

    The second is between her and the man she proposes to marry. The Bible says a man and woman marry and become one FLESH. It does NOT say they marry and become one spirit. SInce he is the one joining his flesh to hers, he is the one who gets to judge whether her flesh is worthy of joining.

  211. Those who answer have often indicated a 2-3 point loss on a 1-10 scale. That is stunning, that the impression of women as a whole could fall this much….
    ——————————————————
    Maybe this is what you were getting at……what this means is the men are seeing….SEEING women for the first time, not the Family Life version of woman, but the real one

  212. to a smallish church that actually stands for the Word of God.
    —————————————————————
    not really, the feminism is there too, it just has wrinkles

  213. TFH says:

    SEEING women for the first time

    Not the first time. Just about all traditional religions had strict controls on women, which clearly were developed after seeing what women are like without controls.

    What IS happening for the first time is that men are resisting their natural state of expendability.

    Men were always expendable. In the old days, this meant dying by the thousands on battlefields while women were mostly safe. Now that we don’t have wars that kill a large percentage of men, the male expendability norm has merely transferred to things like ‘feminist’ laws, where no one cares that the US constitution is violated as long as the recipient is a man and the beneficiary is a woman.

    Slavery, debtor’s prison, and extra-judicial lynchings all exist in 2012 America, under the guise of ‘feminism’.

  214. deti says:

    @ Kieran:

    “I strongly [disagree] that the Bride ever became deserving of Christ through any submission.”

    The Bride became deserving of Christ through (1) submission to (2) Christ’s atoning work on the Cross through the shedding of His Blood and propitiatory death.

    The Bride must accept Christ’s substitutionary crucifixion. The Bride can do this only through voluntary submission. Those who submit to it, accept it. Those who do not submit, reject it. Each human being makes his/her choice.

  215. HeligKo says:

    @ybm – Yes it was the college football players and basketball players at a consistently nationally ranked in the top 5 DII school. They were the thuggish type. The affinity hasn’t changed. I think she picked me, because though I am not a thug, I have an edge to my look and perhaps(giving benefit of the doubt here) thought it would help her overcome those attractions and be able to love me, blah, blah. Race is a big thing with her though. I have watched her try to gain entry into the black community in this city our entire marriage. We adopted a black daughter. I never considered that there was ulterior motives to that, but as she has grown up she has used that daughter to gain the entry into the black community that she was not granted on her own. I don’t really understand it.

  216. ybm says:

    HeligKo says:
    September 7, 2012 at 3:55 pm

    I can say that I sort of knew the answer before I asked the question. For a while I was sleeping with an anglo girl whose previous boyfriend has been black. Now for my own reasons the idea of her being a ‘girlfriend’ was not even considered, but we had a regular fling.

    What made me know the answer to that question before I asked is that your ex-wife made a point to identify these men based on their race alone. On the other hand, I did not know the previous guy (I suspect she was fucking me behind his back for a while) was black until I met him. When I did, he was an upstanding, dorky, socially inept computer science major and I had a few beers with the guy and I knew right away, the non-thug black guy is possibly worse off than the stereotypical white beta-male when it comes to anglo-american women.

    The reason women such as your ex define these men based on their race is that she associates thug-culture with minorities, a subtle form of racism. I assume she probably hated her father too.

    The translation should not be: ‘I had sex with minorities, I lied because I’m ashamed of it” (Because she isn’t)

    The translation is: ‘I fucked the biggest thugs I could, I lied because I liked it”

    This is why I say mens rights advocates must keep race out of the discussion, because they are complaining about the criminal underclass, not the black people themselves. That, and African-American men are possibly the most oppressed men on the planet.

  217. HeligKo says:

    @TFH – The male exendability is a big deal. Since men have fewer opportunities to throw themselves away, society is choosing to do it for them. The problem is this isn’t resulting in dead men, but in defeated men. Many wars have been lost by marching the defeated into captured territory or even back into you home territory. Eventually the defeated feel like they have nothing to lose, and rise up against their captors. The defeated men are being left where they fall in this battle, and they are coming together slowly, but I don’t know that they know who the enemy really is. Women are just behaving as they would without the natural constraints of the men in their life having authority in their life. All authority has been taken from the individual and bestowed upon a court, that in turn sides with the woman. Make no mistake, the woman has not gained authority. The problem is, we as red pill men are seeing the battle against feminism as a battle of men vs women. Its not. It will be a battle of men vs men. At the top of this are men who fully benefit by keeping other men out of the competitive ranks through the misandric policies in the west. There are men who are pulling the strings to keep the feminist movement going, and the women who are the boots on the ground for the movement and the police officers who are the enforcers and the prosecutors and judges that are the punishers are all really just useful idiots.

  218. HeligKo says:

    ybm says:
    September 7, 2012 at 4:06 pm

    Spot on

  219. Cane Caldo says:

    @Deti

    Man, that ain’t worthiness on the part of the woman (or anyone); that’s the grace of God! We can be saved DESPITE our unworthiness. Despite, Deti, despite!

    @whoever said (TFH?)

    Men were always expendable. In the old days, this meant dying by the thousands on battlefields

    I would kill to die on a battlefield.

  220. HeligKo says:

    @YBM – She cheated on me early in our marriage, and being the good AFC, forgave her and kept her. She told me she broke off the “friendship” right away, but it was nearly a year later I got a call from him pissed off about it, and trying to get me riled up. You could tell by how he talked that he was the man you described. I also knew who he was, because I had met him at a college football games years before. On the call his friend in the background called him by name, and pointed out that he probably shouldn’t let me know where they were, because I was big and could probably kick his ass. I hate thugs. I spent my high school life beating on thugs and bullies. Its sad that I married a woman who had a propensity for that kind of man.

  221. Gorbachev says:

    Dalrock.

    Don’t you know: Women are owed marriage and happiness by men? Men are obliged to provide it. When women aren’t happy, no matter why they got married (even if she wanted it, so she said), then don’t you know – men owe them happiness! Don’t absolve men. Men should be working hard to make women happy. Imagine, women worrying about finding a mate! A mate they like! It’s men’s job to be the man a woman wants, and to make her happy in all things. Because her emotional state is provided for and dependent on the man. Oh, also her choices, as far as being responsible for them. But he has no say in what her choices are. And if she has to lie to get what she wants, then it’s men who should Man Up and be what women want, all the time. Stop leading these poor schmucks astray.

    I think you just don’t get it.

  222. ybm says:

    HeligKo says:
    September 7, 2012 at 4:13 pm

    And unfortunately, even christian women who comment on this very blog prefer the charming sexy bad-boy thug (not necessarily black, I’ll get to that part) who doesn’t go to church over the decent church men.

    Now to speak to my own life: I was born in the city that gave birth to the Camorra, this absurd machismo they show in films and television is utterly ridiculous compared to seeing a 7 year old getting shotgunned while riding a bike while walking to school. Yet, anglo women find this disgraceful part of my culture sexy and attractive, and willingly spread their legs after asking me insulting questions about the ‘mafia’. The vagina dries up if they find out I have an MBA and I teach. I guess I’m not enough of a guido to appeal.

    For the intelligent black male he is the same way, do you really think a suburban D&D fan who happens to be Black knows anything about the ghetto? And yet women treat him as though he is straight outta compton because of the colour of his skin, and the vagina dries as soon as he forms a complete sentence and wears a shirt with a collar. So too are British women toward the chav culture that exists in the council estates.

  223. gunner451 says:

    Heligko,

    Women do naturally submit if they feel the guy they are submitting to is “worthy” of that submission. But as we live in a fallen world they are also prone to rebellion and constantly shit testing to make sure you’re fit. There are also those outliers on the curve that are total ball-busting bitches that will never submit to anyone no matter how alpha they are, seems those type are becoming more common now as our society spirals down the drain. However, I should have clarified that when I said it was in their nature to submit that did not mean that our fallen nature did not get in the way of this. Also, remember that the bible in where I was quoting is talking to the redeemed Christian who should theoretically have a “new” nature so while this should apply to Christians mostly it has some application for non-Christians as well.

    My proposed interpretation of Ephesians is based on having observed certain behavior in both men and women in how they behave both while in relationships and after the relationship has ended. After seeing most women not even skip a beat after a long term relationship has ended whereas most men seem to have been emotionally wiped out I can only conclude that most women don’t really love their partner the way men do. For women the love is very much conditional on their respecting him as someone to look up to, once she does not respect him her “feelings” of love quickly evaporate. Men on the other hand seem have the capacity to love their partner despite all sorts of bad behavior, lack of respect and declining looks/increasing body fat. Also, when was the last time any woman offered up her own life to save her husbands? Not too often, and what does the Bible say? “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” Women don’t do this but men do on an almost daily basis.

  224. Sharrukin says:

    HeligKo -She cheated on me early in our marriage, and being the good AFC, forgave her and kept her. She told me she broke off the “friendship” right away, but it was nearly a year later I got a call from him pissed off about it, and trying to get me riled up.

    Why are you still married? Do you think there is any chance that she will stand by you in later years? It doesn’t sound likely from what you describe, and getting it over with sooner rather than later would at least let you get on with your life.

  225. “I would kill to die on a battlefield.”

    I’m going to live forever or die trying.

  226. “This is why I say mens rights advocates must keep race out of the discussion”

    Amen to that. A man is a man.

  227. Starviolet says:

    @ dalrock

    “You are still (intentionally?) missing the larger picture. ”

    I understand your points about marriage laws, frivolous divorce, and divorce theft from reading past posts on your blog. I think that the situation is exaggerated in the manosphere. I could talk about that, but what would be the point? You all seem quite convinced and logic and facts are not going to cut through the hurt, anger, hatred, bitterness and other emotions that I see in the comments section. People react to differing opinions with nasty insults here and that isn’t the type of conversation that I’m interested in having.

    The only thing that was new to me in this post was the idea that men were unknowingly marrying women that don’t love them. I was surprised that a man can’t tell when a woman is pretending to love him, and so I asked about it. Some offered an explanation, some threw a tantrum because I asked.

  228. ybm says:

    hahaha ok!

    Maybe you can say we have small penises before you go and really put some grrrrrrrl power into your afternoon!

  229. van Rooinek says:

    I say mens rights advocates must keep race out of the discussion, because they are complaining about the criminal underclass, not the black people themselves.

    If you believe that, why do you go right back into throwing race INTO the discussion with this hightly disputable statement….

    “….African-American men are possibly the most oppressed men on the planet.

    A lot of intelligent, well-informed, well-travelled, and highly moral people take STRONG exception to that statement. Especialy the 3rd worlders who dominated my college engineering classes, and who knew poverty and oppression for REAL, back home. They laughed at the idea that ANY Americans consider themselves oppressed.

    But then again, none of them ended up in an American divorce court….

  230. Pingback: Feminism is for Mediocre Women « Complementarian Loners

  231. ybm says:

    You’re an admitted racist so I don’t argue with brick walls.

  232. van Rooinek says:

    You’re an admitted racist so I don’t argue with brick walls.

    There you go, lying about me again.

  233. HeligKo says:

    Sharrukin says:
    September 7, 2012 at 4:28 pm

    I am only still married, because I am trying to minimize the damage done by the divorce courts. We have not been together for well over a year now, and will be divorced around Christmas time. It will have been a two year process, but in the end using established patterns and dealing with her without the courts, it looks like we will have a divorce agreement that neither of us has to give up much, since we have divided the property on our own already, and have separately established homes and times with the kids. Neither of us live in the marital home. Her drive has not been to punish me for some wrong, but simply she does not want to be married, and she does not want the kids all the time, so those things put together means she does not want me broke.

  234. ybm says:

    HeligKo says:
    September 7, 2012 at 5:00 pm

    I was a little confused that you kept referring to her as your wife, even though I’ve read your blog and you’ve been separated for a while now. I know one of the big ‘steps’ is to stop seeing her as your wife and thinking in terms of ‘us’ as married men do. But I think it would be healthy for you if you started to transition out of referring to her as ‘your wife’.

  235. Sharrukin says:

    Her drive has not been to punish me for some wrong, but simply she does not want to be married, and she does not want the kids all the time, so those things put together means she does not want me broke.

    Do you have any idea what she wanted or expected from a marriage to begin with? It doesn’t sound like she ever had much intention of making it work. She sounds confused or very misinformed about life in general, which is typical of a lot of women I guess.

  236. TFH says:

    Cane Caldo,

    I would kill to die on a battlefield.

    Why?

    And if so, Afghanistan is the place for you. You can die, but also partake in an exotic culture until then.

  237. Joseph says:

    @VR

    Ignore ybm. He interjects race into many of his statements, but the minute you call him on it, he acts all offended. It’s just par for the course, he’s allowed to say it, but you aren’t.

  238. deti says:

    Star:

    Please cite your evidence for your proposition that unfair marriage laws, frivolous divorce, and divorce theft are exaggerated in the manosphere. Statistics or STFU.

  239. TFH says:

    “….African-American men are possibly the most oppressed men on the planet.

    I almost agree.

    As soon as racism was declining to the point it was not overtly obstructing blacks, feminism started, and black men have borne the brunt of it….

    Very few realize that their gender is under more attack now than their skin color, though. Dragnet, Omnipitron, and a couple others are the only ones….

  240. ybm says:

    TFH says:
    September 7, 2012 at 5:14 pm

    “black men have borne the brunt of it”

    Yup. The figures speak for themselves. Incarceration rates, murder rates, crime statistics, standard of living, family breakdown, misandry AND racist stereotypes against them. Too many would like to handwave it away as ‘human biodiversity’ and yet the same statistics for Aboriginal Canadians and white lower class Brits follow the same trends African American stats do.

    Its not about race, its about misandry.

  241. Bob Wallace says:

    @ Mule Chewing Briars

    “It used to be that both sexes received solid counsel on how to identify emotional swindler”

    Because it’s not done anymore, many fall for the worst people – witty, charming, confident. In other words, narcissistic blowhards.In fact, these days, the worst people are idealized.

  242. AJ Miller says:

    @Starviolet

    We are living in a some very messed up times. There are a lot of women that don’t have a clue about their feelings. What they call love is either lust or enfatuation. Yes these women are quite immature but that is what we are seeing today. Let’s no even mention the women that are sociopaths and can do a good job pretending to be someone else in order to get something. Many men are like that as well and so neither gender holds a monopoly on such evil.

    Maybe we men are stupid…. I don’t know. The fact is that a woman may actually think she is in love with a man and they can be quite convincing in this and in reality she isn’t and and comes into this realization later on in the marriage. What is surprising is that you don’t recognize this. Have you never heard women complaining that their marriage was a lie from the beginning? I have heard that A LOT. In other words, they weren’t in love from the get go and eventually were not happy. I have heard tales like this from all kinds of men and not just beta. This goes on A LOT!

    Perhaps we men are all stupid and we need to work on becoming smarter. Yet, society needs to teach women not to be permanent adolescents who can’t decide who they are and what their feelings are because it seems that this is now how most women are in our society.

  243. Cane Caldo says:

    @HeligKo

    Make no mistake, the woman has not gained authority. The problem is, we as red pill men are seeing the battle against feminism as a battle of men vs women. Its not. It will be a battle of men vs men

    This is an important point to be remembered.

    II I knew about your situation before, I forgot. I just started reading your blog (it’s well-written), and will say a prayer for your guidance tonight.

  244. greyghost says:

    Damn Dalrock that was as hard as rock. You difdn’t even have to use the f word. Forget the beer that calls for some Johnny Walker Blue. http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/shes-the-victim/#comment-55481

  245. Jimmy says:

    There is a commenter ‘Jennifer’ over at LGR’s ranting about how misogynist all of Dalrock’s commenters are (and even refers to deti by name) :

    http://unmaskingfeminism.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/if-you-dont-hold-a-door-open-for-a-woman-then-you-must-be-horrendous-in-bed/comment-page-1/#comment-4860

    Is there some history here? Who is this woman?

  246. ybm says:

    Yes. She trolls this place looking to argue with men for what we suspect is sexual stimulation. Her posts are simply too inflammatory, too deliberate to be anything except an attempt to get her jollies from arguing.

    The old stereotype of the girl who likes to argue then have a hate fuck?

    Jennifer.

  247. Martian Bachelor says:

    Yep. Been there, too many times to remember. I could be cocky and funny with my friends, with teachers, with family — but let a pretty girl walk in the room, and suddenly I turned into a tongue-tied servitor. (Cail Corishev)

    Let me give you another way of looking at what is going on there, by switching the venue to the workplace…

    “Peace will come again. It will come when woman ceases to believe and to teach all manner of evil of man despitefully. It will come when she ceases to impute to him as a crime her own natural disabilities, when she ceases to resent the fact that man cannot and does not wish to work side by side with her.” [emphasis mine]
    – Almroth Wright (1912)

    Introducing women into the workplace is like putting a virus into a computer. The last ones to vacate a field after women invade it en masse are the ones who aren’t doing anything useful to begin with, so they don’t even notice there is a virus until it has practically crippled the whole system.

    This same principle seems to work in other areas. For example, one could argue that it’s at the core of why these modern, “equal” marriages we have nowadays have such a difficult go of it even under the best of circumstances.

  248. greyghost says:

    Star you are just playing dumb because you can. If things were fair and normal for men these mens blogs including this would not be here, and for all of you anti-game christians there would be no game.

  249. van Rooinek says:

    Kiernan — Alte’s closed blog has reopened. I call your attention to this thread:

    http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/men-marry-a-zealot/

  250. Retsie says:

    @ Interested

    I have had similar experiences to you with women who pursue men like the guy on the holiday job.

    It’s like they are commitment phobes and only pursue relationships they know are destined to fail.

    I have been thinking about using that as a game tactic and telling women I meet I’m only in town on bussiness for a few months.

    Anyone tried this?

    This also helps explain the attraction to bad boys. No one will blame them for dumping a douchbag after a few short months. He will give her numerous reasons to dump him and she will feel no guilt in doing so. A good man on the other hand who treats her well will be harder for her to dump because he has not given her the get out of gaol free card where she can dump him and feel no guilt and not have friends question her motives.

  251. an observer says:

    Tfh,

    A. 7 or 8
    B. 2 to 3 tops

  252. driversuz says:

    Heh heh heh. Jennifer.

  253. HeligKo says:

    ybm says:
    September 7, 2012 at 5:02 pm

    In conversation, I really don’t refer to her as my wife. Its hard to be clear when writing to an unknown audience. I tend to flip flop. There is no us, and only in regards to the kids and the divorce do I get caught with the ‘us’ paradigm, but that is fading. You are correct though. The less I do it, the easier this process gets and healing begins.

    Sharrukin says:
    September 7, 2012 at 5:10 pm

    She wants what she wants right now. She is border line personality. She is extremely convincing in the moment. Its hard to explain how the function and how you can get caught in the middle of their deceptions. There are times that if she had argued that the sky was red, I would have had her back. A psychologist has mentioned that some of her behaviors come closer to sociopathic, and BPD has been described as female sociopathy. She exhibits the behaviors that so many women do that we talk about around here. Actually she exhibits all of them and to some extremes. The people who have been involved with BPs often refer to leaving a BP as coming out of Oz back to Kansas. That is what it feels like.

    AS FOR RACISM

    The feminist movement has been highly centered around the abortion or right to choose movement, and the founder of that movement were eugenicists. They were racists through and through, and wanted the results we have had. Which are black families are broken. Black babies are aborted at a rate that makes the holocausts of WWII look like small potatoes. The devaluing of human life for our poor was directly targeting the black population, but it has now bled into the rest of our culture. I hate to fly the flag of cultural Marxism plots as the evil here, but if its not then it is certainly swooping in to take advantage of the situation and encouraging breaking up the families and ushering in the government bully boys to be the men of house.

  254. TFH says:

    an observer,

    Thanks.

    Most people would be *quite* worried if their reputation dropped by 3 (let alone 5) points on a 1-10 scale…..

    Somehow, somewhere, women will start to bear the costs of the mass-downgrade in their reputations that the red pill entails…

    Virtually all who responded have indicated a decline of 3-5 points. While for some it took a long time (as they were ‘naturals’), others had it happen in just a couple of years, on account of the androsphere…

    Surely this is happening across society. The implications of this are huge (even if it does not migrate out of Internet chatter and into real-world pushback).

  255. an observer says:

    Tfh,

    I am still civil towards women. Those i know personally may even get respect. Like wifey, for instance.

    But i am no longer deluded by pedestalising. I recognise beta enablers. I neg women more or less constantly, for being the emotionally infantile children they will always be.

    Whilst commuting, i contemplate otners partner counts.

    Reality has overtaken the delusiosn, and some days, i desperately wish i was still deluded.

  256. Anonymous says:

    Denial ain’t just a river in Africa, it’s a nifty place to live with a few drapes and some bucks from divorce theft… bring on the stud boyfriend, the Ex and child support are paying for it.

  257. Lovekraft says:

    The point of feminist articles laying blame on men for the world’s woes is that these people really have nothing to offer the world and know this.

    So they just stack up lies and errors in the hope that enough of them will obscure their deep-seated anxieties. Anxieties that they are human after all, their life will end, and that they need to cling onto something resembling immortality, albeit a deeply flawed one.

    Because why else would someone try to follow an ideology that thinks one gender has the answers to everything? Even after all evidence points to the fact that women and men need each other, but in a completely NON-FEMINIST framework.

  258. farm boy says:

    @VR
    Game answered the ONE question that the Church could not, or would not All together now — “Why do so many women — including Christian women — reject good men in favor of jerks?”

    This hits the nail on the head. If churches handled this issue, this blog would not exist.

  259. farm boy says:

    I understand your points about marriage laws, frivolous divorce, and divorce theft from reading past posts on your blog. I think that the situation is exaggerated in the manosphere.

    Susan Walsh, is that you?

  260. TFH:

    “Not the first time. Just about all traditional religions had strict controls on women, which clearly were developed after seeing what women are like without controls.

    What IS happening for the first time is that men are resisting their natural state of expendability.

    Men were always expendable. In the old days, this meant dying by the thousands on battlefields while women were mostly safe. Now that we don’t have wars that kill a large percentage of men, the male expendability norm has merely transferred to things like ‘feminist’ laws, where no one cares that the US constitution is violated as long as the recipient is a man and the beneficiary is a woman.

    Slavery, debtor’s prison, and extra-judicial lynchings all exist in 2012 America, under the guise of ‘feminism’.”

    Good insights. It has never been safe being a man. Marriage has always been a minefield for a man.

  261. farm boy says:

    Marriage has always been a minefield for a man.

    Life outside of marriage can be a minefield also.

  262. Of course. My father and brother both died young in accidents. Men die on average years younger than women. And nobody cares.

  263. farm boy says:

    Horseman, what is to be done?

  264. Desiderius says:

    “It’s not that women are liars. It’s that their desire for self-indulgence is unlimited, and men’s indulgence of women is unparalleled.

    This is what rule by liberal elites gets. It’s, as Dalrock says, what they intend. Combined with daycare and public school, it’s as close to Plato’s city-state orphanages as humans have ever come.”

    To what extent do you believe that the clearly expressed preference of women for men who will not indulge them is an attempt on their part to bust up the whole Platonic racket?

  265. TFH says:

    Horseman, what is to be done?

    a) Use the knowledge to make personal choices that reduce personal risk and avoid feeding the system.
    b) Educate other men. Here is an amplified way to do that at no cost.

  266. Desiderius says:

    Cane,

    “This is the Man who professes to confound and obliterate the SMP not just in His day, but for ALL TIME.”

    Yes. The kernel of Christianity is about transcending the status hierarchy and what can be achieved by doing so. Some day in the very distant future, the Christ event and the Apollo mission will become conflated in the myths about our age. It is not a coincidence they occurred so close together in time. The first shoot from the seed of life. As Christ to Man, so Earth to the Stars.*

    But transcendence is not abolition. One must first have a status hierarchy in order to transcend it, and much of our society has now fallen below that. There is a need to build a legitimate one again from scratch, or at least from the faithful remnants of the old one. There is a feel of late Numenor in the air.

    * – hey, its what I see. Someone’s got to prophesy, and I don’t hear anyone else doing it worth a shit.

  267. Desiderius says:

    (a) 5
    (6) 6

    It bottomed out about ten years ago. The rot is still at the top, but even there I see defectors.

  268. Uncle Silas says:

    I wish I could build a time machine, travel back to 2004, and tell my younger self never “to fall in love” with the woman I unfortunately married. My wife is cold, calculating, and frigid; she considers me nothing more than a bank deposit (she’s already gotten the sperm deposit and sex is but a distant memory). Of course, none of my wife’s character flaws manifested before the marriage. So, Starviolet, I guess I’m a stupid male for not recognizing my wife’s duplicity. I know, I should have realized women are more akin to swine than goddesses. I was, however, still enmeshed in a culture that extolled the moral superiority of women–the thought of American women being duplicitous, selfish, and unkind was as absurd to me as the belief in a flat earth. Now that I’m wiser, I’m emotionally withdrawn from my wife. I would consider divorce, but I have a daughter whom I dearly love, and I don’t fancy being raped in family court.

  269. greyghost says:

    To what extent do you believe that the clearly expressed preference of women for men who will not indulge them is an attempt on their part to bust up the whole Platonic racket?

    Women don’t and just plain can’t think like that but do have a god made tendancy to tingle for such men. This comment as simple as it seems as just one more is huge. Any doubts about christianity and game is now gone with this simple comment. We are going to win this it is just a matter of us standing up to the beaste.

  270. Desiderius says:

    “Women don’t and just plain can’t think like that”

    Thought would be unnecessary. The fact is there is no existing Platonic Republic, nor has there been one, or close. There may be some mechanism that prevents one from arising that works via female mating choice on a cultural level.

  271. greyghost says:

    More than just cultural, instinctive and natural. It is very important for enough men to understand what the true effect of pedistalizing woman has. It will always cause problems because it is just un natural.

  272. Elspeth says:

    For the intelligent black male he is the same way, do you really think a suburban D&D fan who happens to be Black knows anything about the ghetto? And yet women treat him as though he is straight outta compton because of the colour of his skin, and the vagina dries as soon as he forms a complete sentence and wears a shirt with a collar.

    Some do. That’s where mine escaped from. He’s more a Call of duty guy than D&D though. He can walk through the ‘hood and not feel intimated which is good since we often visit family on the rough side of town. Still, he’s white collar, and can form a complete sentence. Several in fact :) .

    People are more complex than we like to think.

  273. imnobody says:

    I feel for Kieran. Taking the red pill is a very traumatic and hurtful process, as every man here can attest. As someone said, it’s similar to a very religious person discovering God does not exist (disclaimer: I know God exists but it’s only a comparison). Doing it in only a week is too much to deal with.

    If you want my advice, Kieran, rest it a bit. Don’t read manosphere blogs for a month. Let it sink. It’s not that you have to find a solution right now. Take a vacation of this problem, by not thinking about it and devoting to other things. The unconscious will work during this time and you will see things clearer. Then, come back here. I see you are the marriage kind, so here we discuss strategies to minimize risk in marriage. Welcome and good luck.

  274. Dalrock wrote:

    I challenge anyone who disagrees to point out what laws are in place to prevent any woman who wants from marrying a man she doesn’t love, using him for status, conception, and early child rearing, and then kicking him out of the home while retaining a large portion of his assets and income?

    There is nothing preventing this. It is the system functioning as designed.

    To hell with “the system.” There is nothing preventing this? I am “preventing this.” What is possible under, or even encouraged by, the law is not the whole of justice. We are not slaves to legalism, we are the citizen-authors of it.

    I practice de facto coverture, not just with wives but with all women in my ambit (call it supercoverture), and I will continue its practice until common law, formal statute, and culture are redressed de jure to reflect this reality of my relationship with women. I encourage all men by these presents the same.

    “The law is a ass.” It no longer “supposes” a woman “acts under [my] direction,” and pace Mr. Bumble, I do more than “wish” it to be informed by experience, I insist on it. From Dickens, Oliver Twist:

    “That is no excuse,” replied Mr. Brownlow. “You were present on the occasion of the destruction of these trinkets, and indeed are the more guilty of the two, in the eye of the law; for the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction.”

    “If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass — a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience — by experience.”

    The law is no longer even “a bachelor.” It is an uppity bitch, insisting black is white and male is female. Add to that monstrous error the presumption that the law consists the whole of “the system functioning,” and soft tyranny hardens. George Weigel (pbuh) sends a timely reminder of the Hobbesian/Burkean divide in a recent essay.

    In a Hobbesian world, the only actors of consequence are the state and the individual. In a Burkean world, the institutions of civil society—family, religious congregation, voluntary association, business, trade union and so forth—“mediate” between the individual and the state, and the just state takes care to provide an appropriate legal framework in which those civil-society institutions can flourish.

    In a Hobbesian world, the state—“Leviathan,” in the title of Hobbes’s most famous and influential work—monopolizes power for the sake of protecting individuals from the vicissitudes of a life that is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” In a Burkean world, civil society provides a thick layer of mediation—protection, if you will—that cushions the interactions between individuals and life’s challenges.

    The “little platoons” of civil society mediate between the law and my way of life. Yes, those platoons have been condemned to death by the overweening Leviathan. But, as they are necessary to the functioning of a republic, they must be preserved de facto until de jure protections become feasible again.

    While law makes certain actions possible, the platoons make them impracticable. I make them impracticable. So a woman can technically estate-rape a man, cuckold him, adulterate his bloodline without his knowledge — true. She can also murder him in his sleep.

    A precondition of relationship with a man is to establish extralegally which scenarios the paterfamilias will tolerate as possible in his sight, and the tradition established by his command will manifest itself in every gesture and custom of the relationship, becoming written into the very personalities of the household. This is far stronger and more organic than any legalism from distant ponces who deign to regulate the lives of me and mine. It is the asphalt against the mighty oak: they can busy themselves with micro-scrutiny, attempting to pave over the natural order, but eventually naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret.

    This overriding order is lost on our generation of eunuchs, of course, because they have obediently submitted to the dictates of an aged, bloviating, and ultimately impotent Leviathan. Fully intact men have other avenues of resort than mere law.

    Matt

  275. Starviolet says:

    @uncle silas-

    I’m sorry to read bout your situation. Do you think that there is any way that your marriage can be saved?

  276. Starviolet says:

    “I challenge anyone who disagrees to point out what laws are in place to prevent any woman who wants from marrying a man she doesn’t love, using him for status, conception, and early child rearing, and then kicking him out of the home while retaining a large portion of his assets and income?

    There is nothing preventing this. It is the system functioning as designed.”

    What kind of laws would stop this? How would these laws work?

  277. van Rooinek says:

    Starviolet: What kind of laws would stop this? How would these laws work?

    Abolishing no-fault divorce.
    Abolishing the presumption of female custody.
    Re-criminalizing adultery (it used to be a felony!)

    For starters.

  278. greyghost says:

    a male birth control pill. enforcement of the purgery laws regaurdless of sex. DV laws applied to everybody.

  279. greyghost says:

    Starviolet
    I think you are here to start trouble with the playing dumb act. So in the spirit of conversation you tell us wht would make you stay with a man you were not happy with. what law social custom or even characteristic of the man would make you decide to stay. lets say you are married and have 3 kids 5 years in. You fill in the the other demographic details. and then decide you are not happy and make a move based on the law and simulate the law causing you to decide to stay. Or if you buck up and step off simulate the legal consequences you would suffer under the law. Very difficult thing for a woman to do but if you wanna hang with adults you need to behave and think like one. I’ll give you a hint. use the blog to help you dicuss and ask from the commenter pool here to help you along. This is your chance to show how tight your pussy is, so don’t dick it up. The people here of of good eneough character and quality to see bullshit.

  280. What kind of laws would stop this? How would these laws work?

    These questions are a product of the submissive/female mind. To seek satisfaction in the law and authority rather than one’s will, deeds, and results is the degeneration of liberty. This approach also constitutes the majority of our politics today, and so it is difficult to even direct one’s imagination toward its Burkean efficacy, much less put it into practice.

    Matt

  281. deti says:

    “What kind of laws would stop this? How would these laws work?”

    Followup on vanRooinek:

    1. Complete overhaul of the divorce system. Anyone wanting a divorce must prove fault.
    2. Under a current no-fault system, the spouse leaving the marriage waives the right to alimony with prejudice forever. No alimony to a spouse leaving for “irreconcilable differences”.
    3. Child support payors have liberal rights to readjustment based on current circumstances. Abolition of criminal penalties and contempt of court imprisonments for falling into arrears on child support obligations. Abolition of draconian penalties such as drivers license, FOID and passport revocations.
    4. Child support recipients must account for expenditures to show the amounts received are actually spent on supporting the child.
    5. Mandatory paternity testing. Any father has the right at any time to require a child of questioned paternity to submit to any and all tests as are necessary to establish or disestablish paternity. Legal and de-facto presumptions of paternity abolished.
    6. The man/husband has the right to cease all monetary support if at any time he shows he did not sire a child who is the subject of a child support order.
    7. The man/husband has the legal right to sue and recover damages from any persons who defrauded him into supporting a child, including but not limited to: the cuckold woman, the bio-father, medical personnel, hospitals, and/or governmental agencies.
    8. Imposition of criminal penalties for willful cuckolding.
    9. Capping and limiting endless financial obligations. Child support ends when the child reaches age 18. Father is no longer required to carry health or other insurance on a child after majority. Father is no longer presumed to be required to pay college or other post-secondary expenses.
    10. Child support is based on actual residential custody. If the child splits residence equally between father and mother, no child support.

  282. imnobody says:

    @Feminist Hater

    Blah, blah, blah, blah. Same old boring story, women are incapable of any agency, thus it falls to you, as the man, to perfectly navigate their emotional storms and dock the ship, the relationship ship that is, perfectly in the harbour of marital bliss. FUCK! Anyone else feel a bit put out by that? Or am I alone here?

    No, FH, I completely agree with you. I only wish I could put in words so clearly with my broken English.

    I can’t imagine a hell worse that having to be ruling over a feral woman, being alpha around the clock so she behaves well and we can have a marriage and I don’t lose my kids. I’d rather be alone.

    I am dumping my gf this afternoon because of this. She behaved well as long as I followed all the game tricks. Then she felt sure in our relationship and she gave me LOTS of shit and conflict, behaving like a bitch. Then, I regained the control of the relationship with some alpha harsh punishments and she is like a lamb today. But I don’t want to spend my life herding a woman.

    In life you need energy for your job, for your children, for a million things. A wife is supposed to help you in life (and you are supposed to help her), is supposed to make life easier for you (and you for her) so you both navigate life in companionship and love. A wife is not supposed to be adding unnecessary stress and burden in your life.

    It’s better to have a woman who is OK with you being a normal human being and not “the authority”, the cocky-funny playboy or some other silliness. A woman who is not a child and therefore, that controls herself and her irrational behavior so you don’t have to do it for her (I am responsible of controlling myself, thank you very much). The manosphere is full of crap about that.

    If your wife subtracts more than add, what’s the point? I’d rather be alone.

  283. farm boy says:

    A wife is supposed to help you in life (and you are supposed to help her), is supposed to make life easier for you (and you for her) so you both navigate life in companionship and love. A wife is not supposed to be adding unnecessary stress and burden in your life.

    So true. Game works, but it’s lots of work. She has to be really special to be worth it. Women have priced themselves out of the market.

  284. deti says:

    11. No more community property. Wife no longer has presumed rights to the husband’s future pension benefits. This is fair, because she would have realized those benefits only if she had remained married to him when he received those benefits.

  285. Cail Corishev says:

    Starviolet, that’s easy:

    * Repeal no-fault divorce, so you have to give a reason besides being unhaaaapy, otherwise your spouse can refuse.

    * Eliminate most child support: if the mother wants the kids, she can declare that she will support them herself, otherwise the father gets to take them and do so. Only in cases where neither parent can support the children alone should there be any kind of support.

    * Eliminate alimony, except perhaps in cases where the husband’s income increased greatly during the marriage. In the stereotypical case where they married poor and the wife supported him by doing laundry and odd jobs while he went to medical school, then once he became a rich doctor he dumped her to marry his buxom secretary, I can see how the wife should get a piece of that. But in cases where the man’s income didn’t change — he was just as rich or poor before the wedding as he is now — alimony should be out of the question. It should also never be available to the person filing for the divorce, unless he or she can prove real physical abuse or infidelity. If you marry a guy and then he gets rich and you develop ennui and decide to leave, he shouldn’t have to pay for your new life. If you want to enjoy his new wealth, stay with him.

    Those three things would take away the easiness of divorce and the cash and prizes that too often follow. We’d still get divorce — maybe we’d still get lots of it, as long as our society stays so dysfunctional otherwise — but no one would have anything to gain from it. People would know going into marriage that if they want out later, they’re going to suffer for it.

    Over time, that should lead to people taking marriage more seriously. Paradoxically, it could lead to people marrying earlier, as they try to nail down a quality spouse rather than put it off and have to settle for a questionable one. That’s what I see among the traditionalists I know. They get started young, trying to find someone and settle down and start making babies. That keeps their partner counts low, so better pair bonding and less chance of unhaaaapiness.

  286. greyghost says:

    In life you need energy for your job, for your children, for a million things. A wife is supposed to help you in life (and you are supposed to help her), is supposed to make life easier for you (and you for her) so you both navigate life in companionship and love. A wife is not supposed to be adding unnecessary stress and burden in your life.

    Largest contributer to the military suicide rate. The elephant in the room because no woman today would dare allow herself to be a source of comfort for anybody not even her children. Trust in that.

  287. Feminist Hater says:

    iamnobody:

    A wife is supposed to help you in life (and you are supposed to help her), is supposed to make life easier for you (and you for her) so you both navigate life in companionship and love.

    This is what I grew up expecting marriage to be like. Not easy, not simple but doable and rewarding. Realising that this might not be true for the majority of women is probably the hardest part of the red pill for me to swallow. There is no comfort for the way I feel when I think of these issues, besides praying for a miracle, and hopefully acceptance will come over time.

  288. greyghost says:

    FH
    when the young women start to ask what it takes to be a good wife. Tell them simply to not be an emotional burden.

  289. ybm says:

    greyghost says:
    September 8, 2012 at 12:12 pm

    You are wrong greyghost, when young women start to ask what it takes to be a good wife. Tell them to fuck off.

  290. deti says:

    Were I in Uncle Silas’ position, I would feel constrained to:

    1. Separate out the finances and the property. Half of all funds would be deposited into bank accounts in my name only. Any paychecks I receive would be deposited into accounts in my name only. Exert as much control over all finances as possible. Her car in her name; mine in my name. If possible, the house in my name only.
    2. Keep cash stashed in locations known only to me.
    3. Be fully prepared for her to leave the marriage at any time.
    4. Prepare a “go bag” with cash, clothes, toiletries, and important documents, and keep it at a secure location known only to me.
    5. See a lawyer to find out my rights in event of divorce. Visit all the good family lawyers in my locality, get legal advice from them on my rights in the event of divorce, and make sure I paid them for their time. This will create ethical conflicts of interest for those lawyers and could prevent those lawyers from representing my wife in the event of divorce, thus giving me some time and talent advantage.
    6. Refrain from any further disclosures of emotional or other information. Keep communication to a minimum.
    7. Never agree to see a marriage counselor, so as to avoid giving my wife evidence to use against me in a future divorce.
    8. Scrutinize cell phone records, credit card purchases, land line phone records, and all large purchases. Account for any large cash withdrawals. Examine medical records and pharmacy records to determine who her doctors are, what she is treated for and what medications she takes.

  291. greyghost says:

    You are wrong greyghost, when young women start to ask what it takes to be a good wife. Tell them to fuck off.

    In this environment yes. When young women ask what it takes to be a good wife when the asking is a suicide rate on the rise news shows about “middle aged never married childless women and how they live” then maybe we can tell them the truth but in this environment hell no fuck off is the answer.

  292. Desiderius says:

    gg,

    “More than just cultural, instinctive and natural. It is very important for enough men to understand what the true effect of pedistalizing woman has. It will always cause problems because it is just un natural.”

    Good point. But it also follows that to some extent the problem is already self-correcting by some of the very mechanisms the manosphere tends to decry. Jerks aren’t much interested in being peons in a Platonic Republic.

    “You are wrong greyghost, when young women start to ask what it takes to be a good wife. Tell them to fuck off.”

    I hate this answer but it contains a grain of truth. Traditionally, women looked to older women for the answer to that question, not men. It was a good tradition.

  293. ybm says:

    Desiderius says:
    September 8, 2012 at 1:39 pm

    Indeed I use harsh language as a simplification as most of the guys around here are familiar with MRA criticisms of marriage etc.

    It would have been a lot more work to type out: Tell her to fix the legal discrimination a man has to endure in order to even begin to have a marriage and family and grant him legal protections from being destroyed by a vengeful spouse who has a great deal more political and social clout than he does. And quite frankly for the majority of ‘critics’ like gabby and starviolet it really isn’t worth putting effort into posts when they are so easily dismissed with ‘man-up’.

    This is a side effect of the commercialization (perhaps even feminization) of political culture as well, and I am guilty of it: Politics is no longer nuance and ideology, it is buzz words and catchphrases.

  294. mojohn says:

    @Deti
    deti says:
    September 6, 2012 at 5:07 pm
    Says Star:
    We women lie, but it is OK because after all, men lie too. So even if it’s my fault, it’s your fault too.

    Reminded of another popular culture reference, this time from The Simpsons:

    Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.

  295. @deti 12:19 pm “Were I in Uncle Silas’ position”
    I would suggest having passports for yourself and children in #4.

  296. MaMu1977 says:

    @ybm

    For me, it works like this

    PYT: Oh, you’re black and from New York. What do you do for fun?

    Truth: I like sci-fi, playing chess with the old people in the park and bike riding.
    PYT walks away

    Lie: Well, once a day I go to a different girl’s house and break her back. Then I go to my man-an-em’s house to study Five Percenter Islam, then all of us do kung fu. Want some weed to smoke? We gonna get twisted.
    PYT starts playing with her hair and crossing her legs. She asks, “How many girls?”
    I say, “99 of them, like Jay-Z, bitch! You wanna be number 100? I’m fitting to cut the number down, you might could be in my top 5.”
    PYT all but falls to the ground.

    And people still wonder why I don’t date very often…

  297. HeligKo says:

    @MaMu1977 – I feel for you. There is a similar problem I have seen with black women who don’t fit the stereotype. I work with two sisters that both make good money as professionals in the tech industry. The grew up near the city center of my city. One has multiple babies from multiple dads. She doesn’t date anymore. Those babies were all from thugs before she moved into the professional world. She can’t find a man who will date her with her history, who is not a thug. She is a very beautiful woman. Her sister is a good girl. She has no kids, and is 40. She has dated men from her church, and other places that she could meet good guys, or so she thought, but most of them were thugs. She has moved out to the suburbs, and finds that the only black men out there are married. The white men won’t date her because of the reputation of black women. She doesn’t give me the vibe that she is the overbearing inner city black woman, and I have worked with her for 12 years. If I didn’t work with her, I would probably ask her out. We have had long conversations about this, she has consigned herself to being single. She has pointed out all of the older black women who work with us, who also have gave up dating after dealing a few thugs. Sadly I suspect she would take a white man who likes sci-fi and chess, but would pass on the black man who does the same, and not realize that she is passing by guys like you who might be exactly what would be good for her.

  298. MaMu1977 says:

    @Heligko

    Here’s a tidbit..

    Abortion has been all but re-criminalised in over 20 states. Due to multiple qualifications, multiple caveats and random restructuring of districts, there are places in America in which a “deceived” woman has to travel 4-6 hours to find an abortion clinic. Yet, even in Mississippi (a state with one functional termination center), the quickest way to get an abortion is to go to the *whisper* black side of town/the state/etc.

  299. HeligKo says:

    @MaMu1977 – The only abortion clinics in my city are in the parts of town that are predominantly occupied by black people. Planned Parenthood was started by eugenicists. They wanted to control the black population. Abortion in this country has been couched in lots of language about choice and other feminists clap trap, but it truly has been a tool of the racists, real racists.

  300. Matthew says:

    HeligKo: “it truly has been a tool of the racists, real racists”

    I’m a racist, but not in the sense you mean. Only one tribe of men have ever been the real racists. In this particular case, they’re playing both sides of the game. Wait, what? In every known case, they play both sides of the game.

  301. Martian Bachelor says:

    Seinfeld: Season 3, Episode 14 (1992) – “The Pez Dispenser”

    Sub-plot: George laments never having “the upper hand” in relationships. When he thinks his pianist gf is on the verge of breaking up w/him, he and Jerry brilliantly strike upon the idea of the preemptive breakup. This has the desired effect of making the girl practically beg for him not to go, in a funny scene sporting the new Alpha George and her in the coffee shop. Of course success is short-lived, as she quickly turns up some other deception of his.

  302. Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You: Marriage Week | Society of Amateur Gentlemen

  303. Pingback: Father Knows Best: Deep-Fried Edition « Patriactionary

  304. van Rooinek says:

    As men we have all had the choice between the hot babe drama queen and the plain jane girl who’s gonna love you and worship the ground you walk on.

    Um.. NOOOOOOOOOOO…… Most men do NOT get that choice.

    For most men, the ” hot babe” will never speak to them, and the “plain jane” girl only settles for us when she realizes she can’t do any better.

  305. Pingback: Man-Up and Marry Level 2: Re-Education | The Society of Phineas

  306. 2121xxx says:

    @ star: true story: I have a very close friend who goes overseas on sex vacations (also for other motivations). He has stories about sleeping with prostitutes who required no money from him — then, as they were parting ways the next morning, he voluntarily would her a nice sum of money. Yes, there are prostitutes who really would “do” a man just because they like him — and, incidentally, there are alpha males who are kind enough to give money to women with no strings attached, whatsoever, just because it is the right and good thing to do. He told me he realized how much of an impact money makes on these chicks’ lives in a country that is dirt poor.

  307. 8oxer says:

    HeligKo:

    The white men won’t date her because of the reputation of black women.

    She needs to blame her sisters for that. Aside from that though, I have dated several black women. There are some in my area who are resettled refugees from East Africa. They act nothing like the black or white American skanks. They are slim, pretty, work hard, most know English, and I have found them to be altogether superior in intelligence to American women (race makes no difference) too. One of these women has a physics degree, another is relatively uneducated but shrewdly runs a hair salon.

    The downside to dating these women is that they are not hoes. You will not get a same night lay, or even a same month lay. Their partner count is very low and often they are virgins. They also get married very quickly, and if you aren’t into getting married, they will find other dudes in their own Christian or Muslim communities who will put a ring on it. I think, though, that if an American dude absolutely must marry, he could do a lot worse than marrying one of these particular Black women.

    The only thing I wonder about is whether they will eventually become the skanky, loud mouthed, abrasive hoes that they see in all the American women around them. It’s a possibility.

  308. Pingback: Men in Love |

  309. Pingback: Financial Frame | The Reinvention of Man

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

  311. Pingback: Moving In with Her is Bad for Your Health | The Reinvention of Man

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